In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights of: K.A., A.A., E.S. & S.A. (Minor Children), and T.S. (Mother) & G.A. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                                    FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                Jan 10 2020, 8:51 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of establishing                              CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                    and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: G.A.                             ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Daniel G. Foote                                          Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Indianapolis, Indiana                                    Attorney General of Indiana
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: T.S.                             Robert J. Henke
    Anna Onaitis Holden                                      Deputy Attorney General
    Zionsville, Indiana                                      Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In the Matter of the Termination                         January 10, 2020
    of Parental Rights of:                                   Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A-JT-1390
    K.A., A.A., E.S. & S.A. (Minor
    Children),                                               Appeal from the Marion Superior
    Court
    and
    The Honorable Mark A. Jones,
    T.S. (Mother) & G.A. (Father)                            Judge
    Appellants-Respondents,                                  The Honorable Peter Haughan,
    Magistrate
    v.
    Trial Court Cause Nos.
    49D15-1811-JT-1286
    The Indiana Department of                                49D15-1811-JT-1287
    Child Services,                                          49D15-1811-JT-1288
    Appellee-Petitioner,                                     49D15-1811-JT-1309
    Robb, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020              Page 1 of 29
    Case Summary and Issue
    [1]   T.S. (“Mother”) and G.A. (“Father”) (collectively “Parents”) separately appeal
    the juvenile court’s judgment terminating their parental rights to their four
    children. Each parent presents several issues for our review, all of which we
    consolidate and restate as whether the juvenile court’s order terminating
    Parents’ parental rights was clearly erroneous. Concluding it was not clearly
    erroneous, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   Mother and Father are unmarried but have lived together for thirteen years.
    They have four biological children: K.A., born November 17, 2006; A.A., born
    June 23, 2009; E.S., born January 5, 2012; and S.A., born October 27, 2015
    (collectively “Children”). E.S. and S.A. both have significant medical needs.1
    [3]   The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) initially became involved with the
    family in November 2016 when it filed child in need of services (“CHINS”)
    petitions due to Mother’s substance abuse. In February 2017, the juvenile court
    approved an Informal Adjustment (“IA”) for a period of six months and
    dismissed the CHINS case. As part of the IA, Mother began participating in
    home-based case management and home-based therapy and completed a
    1
    E.S. has been diagnosed on the autism spectrum and has global developmental delays and congenital
    malformation syndrome. S.A. suffers from congenital hypothyroidism. Both children require multiple
    therapies and regular, frequent medical appointments. See Appealed Order at 6, ¶¶ 56-58.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020             Page 2 of 29
    substance abuse assessment. She also began a substance abuse treatment
    program but quit after approximately one month when the program tried to put
    her in group therapy. Because of her social anxiety, Mother only wanted one-
    on-one treatment.
    [4]   On June 28, 2017, DCS filed a second petition alleging Children to be CHINS
    pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1.2 The same day, the juvenile court
    terminated the IA as unsuccessful and ordered Children to be removed from
    Parents’ care. At a July 14, 2017, hearing, Father requested Children be
    returned to his care. Neither the Children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) nor
    Mother objected to Father’s request, and the juvenile court ordered Children to
    be placed on temporary trial visitation with Father on the condition Mother
    was not residing in the house. Mother was authorized to have supervised
    parenting time with Children.3 The juvenile court indicated it would reconsider
    Mother’s living arrangement if she was willing to undergo a substance abuse
    2
    The petition alleges that each child is a CHINS because:
    The child’s physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as
    a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian to
    supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or
    supervision; and the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that the child is not
    receiving; and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of
    the Court.
    The Exhibits (“Exhibits”), Volume I at 35.
    3
    The record is unclear regarding where Mother was living during the time she was required to stay out of the
    house.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020                         Page 3 of 29
    assessment, follow all recommendations, and submit to drug screens
    consistently. Two weeks later, Father asked the juvenile court if Mother could
    return home to help with Children. The juvenile court found that Father
    worked six days a week from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and struggled with childcare for
    Children for about an hour at the end of each day, plus all day on Friday for
    S.A. Over objection by DCS and the GAL, the juvenile court entered an order
    allowing Mother to return home and be unsupervised with Children Monday
    through Thursday for the hour at the end of the day and with S.A. all day on
    Friday; DCS and the GAL were to conduct frequent pop-in visits during those
    times. Mother was ordered to continue participating in all services she had
    begun during the IA and maintain clean drug screens.
    [5]   At a hearing on August 18, 2017, Mother admitted that Children are CHINS
    because the family needs assistance in providing a home free from substance
    abuse and therefore, the coercive intervention of the court was necessary. See
    Exhibits, Vol. I at 56. Father waived his right to a fact-finding hearing.
    Therefore, the juvenile court adjudicated the Children to be CHINS and
    ordered they remain in their current placement with Father.
    [6]   The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on September 8, 2017. Due to
    evidence that Parents were not being cooperative with service providers or
    DCS, Mother was being left alone with Children outside of the times previously
    authorized, and Mother had admitted to misusing prescription medication, the
    juvenile court ordered Children to be removed from Father’s care. DCS placed
    Children in three separate foster homes, with E.S. and S.A. placed together in
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 4 of 29
    therapeutic foster care. The juvenile court authorized Parents to have
    supervised parenting time with Children and entered a parental participation
    order for Mother to engage in home-based therapy and home-based case
    management and follow all recommendations; complete a substance abuse
    assessment and complete all treatment recommendations; submit to random
    drug and alcohol testing; and undergo a mental health assessment and follow
    all recommendations. See 
    id. at 68-69.
    Father was not ordered to complete any
    services at that time because he was “never home”; Mother had the caretaking
    role and was most in need of services. Transcript of Evidence, Volume II at
    117. Children have been out of Parents’ care since this date.
    [7]   Following the dispositional hearing, Mother was initially compliant with home-
    based therapy. At some point, Mother missed four sessions and was in danger
    of being discharged, but she re-engaged and had been regularly meeting with
    her home-based therapist for two years as of the termination hearing. Mother
    has made some progress in some of her treatment goals, but the main goal of
    sober living has not been accomplished. Her therapist testified that at no point
    has he been able to recommend that Children be reunited with Parents. Mother
    was briefly compliant with home-based case management services but did not
    successfully complete any case management goals. The service was closed out
    in December 2018 due to non-communication. Mother completed at least three
    substance abuse assessments but never completed a substance abuse treatment
    program. Mother failed to submit to multiple drug screens.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 5 of 29
    [8]    In early 2018, DCS requested a hearing because it wanted Father to begin
    participating in services. The juvenile court issued an additional parental
    participation order for Father to engage in home-based therapy and follow all
    recommendations; complete a Father Engagement Program; submit to random
    drug screens; and undergo a mental health evaluation and follow all
    recommendations. See Exhibits, Vol. I at 77. Father engaged in home-based
    therapy but has not been successfully discharged. He participated in the Father
    Engagement Program for four weeks, but the program was closed out because
    “times started changing [and] it just didn’t work out.” Tr., Vol. II at 45.
    Regarding Father’s drug screens, he tested negative each time. Father did not
    receive any recommendations for mental health treatment.
    [9]    On April 19, 2018, the juvenile court suspended Parents’ visitation rights
    because they were having inappropriate conversations about the CHINS
    proceedings with Children during visitations, Mother’s substance abuse
    continued, and Parents were not making progress in their services. Parents have
    not seen Children since this time because service providers have not been able
    to recommend resuming visits.
    [10]   At a permanency hearing on October 19, 2018, the juvenile court found that
    Mother participates in home-based therapy but has never addressed her sobriety
    despite repeated recommendations by DCS for substance abuse treatment;
    Mother had only participated in drug screens twice since August and those drug
    screens were positive for methamphetamines and opiates; Mother had only
    recently re-engaged in mental health services through a new provider; Father
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 6 of 29
    participates in home-based therapy but has not made progress toward
    reunification; and Mother’s and Father’s therapists recommended a domestic
    violence assessment after observing bruises on Mother. See Exhibits, Vol. I at
    102. At this time, the permanency plan changed from reunification with Parents
    to termination of parental rights and adoption.
    [11]   On November 16, 2018, DCS filed a verified petition seeking the involuntary
    termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. A fact-finding hearing was
    held on March 19, 2019. Mother testified at the hearing that she has had
    periods of up to three months of sobriety but admitted she had not completed a
    treatment program. She also testified that if she were to submit to a drug screen
    that day, she would test positive, as she had used pain killers two days before
    the hearing. Father testified that he and Mother were still residing together and
    intended to continue working on their relationship. He said he was still
    working the same job he had been working at the outset of the CHINS case but
    was “looking into” finding a different job with more flexible hours. Tr., Vol. II
    at 42. Although he said he was able to care for Children on his own, he also
    said if Children were returned that day, “it would be easier on [him]” if Mother
    was there to help care for them. 
    Id. at 39.
    [12]   Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order terminating Mother’s
    and Father’s parental rights and found, in relevant part:
    21. Mother participated in home-based therapy throughout the
    case. She worked with the same home-based therapist for two
    years, but she failed to make any significant progress in
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 7 of 29
    addressing her substance abuse or anxiety which effect multiple
    areas of her daily life.
    ***
    24. Mother has participated in at least three substance abuse
    evaluations, but has not successfully followed through on any
    recommendations stemming from those assessments. . . .
    ***
    34. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from her home-based
    case management services for non-communication. None of her
    goals in this service were met.
    35. Mother failed to actively engage in random drug screens. The
    [family case manager (“FCM”)] has received very few screens
    from Mother over the course of this case, and when she asked
    Mother to screen, Mother would frequently respond with, “Yeah
    but I’m going to be dirty.” This is consistent with Mother’s
    admission that she is still an active user of methamphetamines
    and pain pills.
    36. Mother’s service providers would frequently receive calls
    from Father cancelling [M]other’s appointments for her. . . .
    37. Father’s actions, such as his continued enabling of Mother’s
    addictive behavior, domestically abusive behavior and frequent
    statements that he is unable or unwilling to parent the children
    without Mother, has prevented DCS, GAL or anybody on the
    team from being able to recommend the children return to his
    care.
    ***
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 8 of 29
    39. If the [C]hildren were returned to Father, the only way for
    their parental obligations to be met would be for Mother to be
    alone with the [C]hildren a significant amount of time.
    ***
    41. Father’s current job requires him to work six days a week
    from 9am to 6pm. Although Father is looking for a job where he
    can make the same amount of money and work less hours, he
    has not taken any steps towards finding employment which
    would allow him to successfully parent the [C]hildren without
    Mother until she is able to safely be in the home with the
    [C]hildren.
    42. Father has acknowledged being domestically violent towards
    Mother and has only completed five out of twenty-six
    recommended classes towards this service. This referral was
    made at the recommendation of Mother and Father’s service
    providers.
    43. Father participated in home-based therapy but has not been
    successfully discharged.
    44. Father did not participate in Father’s Engagement.
    ***
    60. When asked about what treatments the [C]hildren needed,
    . . . [P]arents were largely unable to articulate the services which
    [S.A.] and [E.S.] need, and do not have a plan for how they will
    manage the extensive transportation and time requirements
    needed to ensure the [C]hildren make these appointments.
    ***
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 9 of 29
    62. The FCM testified that the [C]hildren are placed in pre-
    adoptive foster homes. . . .
    63. The [C]hildren’s [GAL] recommends the court grant the
    DCS’s Petition for Involuntary Termination and believes that to
    be in [the Children’s] best interest.
    64. The totality of evidence in this case demonstrates, among
    other significant issues such as the [C]hildren’s medical needs, a
    codependent, controlling and sometimes violent relationship
    between the [P]arents, and a failure to complete court ordered
    services that [M]other is either unable or unwilling to address her
    substance abuse issues. It further demonstrates Father is either
    unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to ensure he can
    provide the [C]hildren with a safe home free from substance
    abuse.
    ***
    66. Mother’s failure to attend and complete substance abuse
    treatment, despite numerous opportunities to do so reflects a
    choice that Mother has repeatedly made to mitigate her own
    discomfort in group sessions rather than to provide a safe and
    stable environment for [C]hildren free from substance abuse. . . .
    67. Mother’s current engagement with a treatment program has
    not proven effective as she continues to use illicit substances and
    would test positive for illicit substances such as pain pills if tested
    the day of trial. Mother has missed multiple meetings and
    appointments with her current treatment provider. This
    reinforces a seeming lack of motivation or interest in maintaining
    sobriety.
    ***
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 10 of 29
    Appealed Order at 3-6.4 Based on these findings, the juvenile court concluded
    there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to Children’s
    removal and continued placement outside the home would not be remedied and
    continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Children’s well-
    being. See 
    id. at 7-8,
    ¶¶ 75-76. The juvenile court also concluded that
    termination of Parents’ parental rights is in the Children’s best interests and
    adoption is a satisfactory plan. See 
    id. at 8,
    ¶¶ 77-78. Mother and Father now
    separately appeal. Additional facts pertinent to each parent will be supplied in
    the analysis of their respective appeals as necessary.5
    Discussion and Decision
    I. Standard of Review
    [13]   The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a
    parent’s right to raise his or her children. In re D.D., 
    804 N.E.2d 258
    , 264 (Ind.
    Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Although “[a] parent’s interest in the care,
    custody, and control of his or her children is ‘perhaps the oldest of the
    fundamental liberty interests[,]’” parental interests are not absolute and “must
    be subordinated to the child’s interests in determining the proper disposition of
    a petition to terminate parental rights.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family &
    4
    Our citation to the appealed order is based on the .pdf pagination.
    5
    We note that the State’s brief provides a witness by witness summary of the testimony at the TPR hearing
    which is prohibited by the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(c).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020              Page 11 of 29
    Children, 
    839 N.E.2d 143
    , 147 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 
    530 U.S. 57
    , 65 (2000)). Thus, the parent-child relationship may be terminated when a
    parent is unable or unwilling to meet their parental obligations. 
    Id. We are
    cognizant that involuntary termination of parental rights is the most severe
    sanction a court can impose because it severs all rights of a parent to his or her
    child. Matter of D.G., 
    702 N.E.2d 777
    , 780-81 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Therefore,
    termination is considered a last resort, “available only when all other
    reasonable efforts have failed.” 
    Id. at 781.
    [14]   Given the juvenile court’s unique position, we review the termination of
    parental rights with great deference. In re J.C., 
    994 N.E.2d 278
    , 283 (Ind. Ct.
    App. 2013). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
    witnesses. 
    Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147
    . Instead, we consider the evidence and
    reasonable inferences most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment. 
    Id. We will
    set aside the juvenile court’s judgment terminating a parent-child
    relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 
    717 N.E.2d 204
    , 208 (Ind.
    Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied, cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 1161
    (2002). Thus, if the
    evidence and inferences support the decision, we must affirm. 
    Id. [15] The
    juvenile court’s judgment contains specific findings of fact and conclusions
    thereon as required by Indiana Code section 31-35-2-8(c). Therefore, we apply a
    two-tiered standard of review: we first determine whether the evidence supports
    the findings, then whether the findings support the judgment. K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t
    of Child Servs., 
    39 N.E.3d 641
    , 646 (Ind. 2015). “Findings are clearly erroneous
    only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 12 of 29
    inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 
    671 N.E.2d 98
    , 102 (Ind. 1996). A judgment is
    clearly erroneous only if the findings do not support the court’s conclusions or
    the conclusions do not support the judgment thereon. 
    Id. II. Requirements
    for Termination
    [16]   To terminate the parent-child relationship, DCS must prove by clear and
    convincing evidence:
    (B) that one (1) of the following is true:
    (i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions
    that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons for
    placement outside the home of the parents will not be
    remedied.
    (ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation
    of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-
    being of the child.
    ***
    (C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
    (D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of
    the child.
    Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2); see also Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2 (“A finding in a
    proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and
    convincing evidence.”) “[I]f the court finds that the allegations in a petition
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 13 of 29
    described [above] are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child
    relationship.” Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a) (emphasis added). Because Indiana
    Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, the juvenile court is
    only required to find that one of the elements of subsection (b)(2)(B) was
    established by clear and convincing evidence. In re I.A., 
    903 N.E.2d 146
    , 153
    (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
    III. Father’s Appeal
    A. Findings of Fact
    [17]   Father challenges six of the juvenile court’s findings of fact as unsupported by
    the evidence. As noted above, findings are clearly erroneous if the record
    contains no evidence to support them either directly or by inference. In re S.S.,
    
    120 N.E.3d 605
    , 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Father challenges only six findings;
    we accept the remaining findings as true. Madlem v. Arko, 
    592 N.E.2d 686
    , 687
    (Ind. 1992).
    [18]   First, Father challenges finding thirty-nine:
    39. If the [C]hildren were returned to Father, the only way for
    their parental obligations to be met would be for Mother to be
    alone with the [C]hildren a significant amount of the time.
    Father contends this finding is unsupported by the evidence because he testified
    he would “be able to place the Children in day care while he is at work[.]” Brief
    of [Father] (“Father’s Br.”) at 29; see also Tr., Vol. II at 157. He also notes
    Children will be required to attend school during weekdays and he will not
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 14 of 29
    need childcare during those hours. He therefore argues there would be no
    particular need for Children to be left alone in Mother’s care while he is at
    work. However, prior to the Children’s removal, Father worked 9 a.m. to 6
    p.m. six days a week and struggled to take care of Children, especially for an
    hour at the end of each workday, hours during which Children are not in
    school. Rather than place Children in daycare when the juvenile court allowed
    Children to be placed with him shortly after the CHINS proceedings began,
    however, Father requested permission for Mother to watch the Children
    unsupervised while he worked even though she had documented substance
    abuse issues. Father testified at the termination hearing that at the outset of this
    case, he could not care for Children and keep his job without Mother’s help. See
    Tr., Vol. II at 36. Although he testified he was now willing to care for Children
    alone and said he had a plan to do so, he did not present any evidence to the
    juvenile court that he had taken concrete steps to implement that plan. Rather,
    he testified that he had only “been thinking about making a change [in his job]
    for at least a month[,]” despite having nearly two years to address the issue. 
    Id. at 158.
    Moreover, he was “just starting to look into” daycare. 
    Id. at 157.
    There
    is ample evidence in the record from which a reasonable inference could be
    made that Father cannot care for Children without Mother’s help. Therefore,
    finding thirty-nine is not clearly erroneous.
    [19]   Father also challenges finding forty-one:
    41. Father’s current job requires him to work six days a week
    from 9am to 6pm. Although Father is looking for a job where he
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 15 of 29
    can make the same amount of money and work less hours, he
    has not taken any steps towards finding employment which
    would allow him to successfully parent the [C]hildren without
    Mother until she is able to safely be in the home with the
    [C]hildren.
    Father argues that the evidence shows he has taken steps to obtain a position
    with a different work schedule. He also argues that he cannot be expected to
    change jobs without knowing when Children will be coming back to his care.
    As noted above, the record shows that at the time of the termination hearing,
    Father still had the same job with the same hours that resulted in him needing
    Mother’s assistance to care for Children at the beginning of the CHINS
    proceedings. Almost two years later, Father began thinking about changing
    employment, and a week before the termination hearing, he heard about a job at
    which he could work fewer hours, on fewer days, for the same amount of
    money. However, he had not even had an interview for this new position, let
    alone been hired. As for not changing jobs until he knew Children would be
    returned to his care, there needed to be evidence that Father could care for
    Children alone if they were returned to his care. Maintaining the same schedule
    for the entirety of this case does not demonstrate his ability or willingness to do
    so. We conclude there is evidence to support finding forty-one.
    [20]   Next, Father contends finding forty-two is unsupported by the evidence:
    42. Father has acknowledged being domestically violent towards
    Mother and has only completed five out of twenty-six
    recommended classes towards his service. This referral was made
    at the recommendation of Mother and Father’s service providers.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 16 of 29
    Father contends this finding is clearly erroneous because although Father
    admitted to one incident of domestic violence, Parents denied any other
    incidents and he was actively participating in domestic violence classes at the
    time of the termination hearing. Father admitted at the termination hearing,
    and in his brief, that he pushed Mother, which resulted in her sustaining bruises
    and a black eye. See 
    id. at 46;
    see also Father’s Br. at 30. In addition to that
    admission, however, service providers also noticed that Mother “visibly would
    have bruises and things like that,” Tr., Vol. II at 51, and noted that Father’s
    controlling behavior was of concern, see 
    id. at 52
    (Mother’s therapist testifying
    that Father would cancel Mother’s appointments) and 93 (Mother’s home-
    based case manager testifying that Father would often have both his and
    Mother’s cellphones). This evidence indicates there was a greater concern than
    a single incident. Father also stated at the termination hearing that he only
    completed five of twenty-six domestic violence classes, which is consistent with
    the juvenile court’s finding. Although Father is correct that finding forty-two
    does not acknowledge that he had only completed five classes because the
    referral came late in the process and the classes are ongoing, this finding is
    nonetheless supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
    [21]   Father also challenges finding forty-three:
    43. Father participated in home-based therapy but has not been
    successfully discharged.
    At the termination hearing, FCM Seleste Fielder testified that Father was
    engaged in home-based therapy, but he has not been successfully discharged.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 17 of 29
    Father simply argues that it is “difficult to conceive” how he could successfully
    complete this service while Children remain in foster care. Father’s Br. at 30.
    However, it appears he is participating in therapy weekly. See Tr., Vol. II at 44
    (Father testifying that he participates in therapy every week). Thus, although
    the finding is perhaps worded poorly because it does not reflect that Father has
    not been successfully discharged because therapy is ongoing, it does impart that
    Father’s therapist believes he is still in need of therapy. Thus, the evidence in
    the record is consistent with the juvenile court’s finding and it is not clearly
    erroneous.
    [22]   Father argues finding forty-four is not supported by the evidence:
    44. Father did not participate in Father’s Engagement.
    Father maintains that this finding is clearly erroneous because he did participate
    in the Father Engagement Program for several weeks. Father also argues it is
    not possible to complete the program when the Children are not in his custody.
    Father testified at the termination hearing that he participated in the program
    for four weeks until his employment conflicted with the program. Thus,
    although a reasonable interpretation of the juvenile court’s finding based on
    inferences from the evidence is that Father did not fully participate and complete
    the program, the finding is technically incorrect. However, the inclusion of this
    finding is harmless error. When an erroneous finding is “not of such magnitude
    that it calls into question the court’s conclusion” when considered in
    conjunction with the other evidence presented and findings made, we will not
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 18 of 29
    reverse. Matter of A.C.B., 
    598 N.E.2d 570
    , 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); see also In re
    B.J., 
    879 N.E.2d 7
    , 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming termination of parental
    rights despite erroneous finding based on testimony stricken from the record
    because the error did not “constitute the sole support for any conclusion of law
    necessary to sustain the judgment”), trans. denied. This erroneous finding does
    not directly and solely support a conclusion necessary to sustain the judgment
    and therefore, it is at most harmless error.
    [23]   Finally, Father challenges finding sixty:
    60. When asked about what treatments the [C]hildren needed,
    either in terms of [K.A.] and [A.A.]’s therapy or [E.S.] and
    [S.A.]’s medical needs, parents were largely unable to articulate
    the services which [S.A.] and [E.S.] need, and do not have a plan
    for how they will manage the extensive transportation and time
    requirements needed to ensure the [C]hildren make these
    appointments.
    Father argues that this finding is unsupported by the evidence because Parents
    provided care and transportation for Children prior to their removal and they
    were unaware of Children’s medical conditions only because they were unable
    to visit with them and were not given specific details by service providers. At
    the termination hearing, Father answered affirmatively when asked whether he
    was aware of any specific medical needs that any of the Children have. See 
    id. at 37.
    But he was only able to articulate that E.S. has autism and S.A. needs
    therapies. The record reveals that Father attended only one of E.S.’s numerous
    therapy sessions. Further, Father stated that he would be able to take Children
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 19 of 29
    to their appointments when he found a part-time job. However, at the fact-
    finding hearing, Father testified that he was looking for part-time employment
    but offered no evidence that he had secured such employment or had taken any
    steps toward achieving this goal. See 
    id. at 156-57.
    Because the evidence
    establishes that Father was not aware of Children’s many medical conditions
    and required treatments and that he failed to obtain more flexible employment
    which would allow him to transport the Children to their many appointments,
    we conclude there is evidence in the record to support this finding.
    [24]   In essence, Father’s arguments are all requests for this court to reweigh the
    evidence, which we will not do. See 
    Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147
    . We conclude
    there is evidence in the record to support most of the challenged findings and,
    to the extent finding forty-four is clearly erroneous, the error does not call into
    question the juvenile court’s conclusion given the substantial evidence
    supporting termination of Father’s parental rights. Therefore, we find no error.
    B. Conclusions of Law
    1. Remedy of Conditions Resulting in Removal
    [25]   The juvenile court concluded there is a reasonable probability that the
    conditions resulting in Children’s removal and continued placement outside the
    home will not be remedied. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B). Father
    challenges the juvenile court’s conclusion and argues that the evidence does not
    “clearly and convincingly” show that the conditions will not be remedied.
    Father’s Br. at 32.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 20 of 29
    [26]   In determining whether the conditions that led to removal are likely to be
    remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis: we first identify the conditions that
    led to Children’s removal, and then determine whether there is a reasonable
    probability that those conditions will not be remedied. 
    K.E., 39 N.E.3d at 647
    .
    The second step requires the juvenile court to evaluate a parent’s fitness to care
    for a child at the time of the termination hearing and consider a parent’s pattern
    of conduct to determine whether there is a “substantial probability of future
    neglect or deprivation of the children.” In re T.F., 
    743 N.E.2d 766
    , 774 (Ind. Ct.
    App. 2001), trans. denied. When evaluating a parent’s fitness, the juvenile court
    may properly consider a parent’s criminal history, substance abuse issues,
    history of neglect, failure to provide support, lack of adequate housing and
    employment, and services offered by DCS to a parent and the parent’s response
    to those services. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 
    987 N.E.2d 1150
    , 1157 (Ind.
    Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Moreover, this court has held that a pattern of
    unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and to cooperate with counselors
    and those providing services, in conjunction with unchanged and unacceptable
    home conditions, supports a finding that there is no reasonable probability the
    unacceptable conditions in the home will be remedied. Matter of D.B., 
    561 N.E.2d 844
    , 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
    [27]   The record reveals that Children were initially removed from Parents’ care due
    to Mother’s substance abuse problems. Children were briefly returned to
    Father’s care but the juvenile court ultimately ordered the Children to be
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 21 of 29
    removed from Father’s care and remain out of his care due to his inability to
    care for Children without Mother’s assistance in their home.
    [28]   The record supports the conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that
    the conditions that led to Children’s removal and continued placement outside
    of Father’s care would not be remedied. Mother has failed to address or remedy
    her substance abuse issues. When asked to submit to a drug screen the day of
    the fact-finding hearing, Mother indicated she would test positive for illicit
    substances. Although Mother participated in some services, the evidence
    demonstrates that Father hindered Mother’s participation by interfering with
    those services, preventing Mother from making progress and remedying her
    substance abuse.
    [29]   At the fact-finding hearing, Mother’s home-based case manager Sherika Sultzer
    testified that Mother was inconsistent with services and would not be heard
    from for “about three or four weeks[.]” 
    Id. at 74.
    She testified that Father
    cancelled a lot of Mother’s appointments and Mother was unaware of it. Sultzer
    opined that Father was not supportive of Mother’s significant need in obtaining
    treatments. Furthermore, Father would ignore Mother’s substance abuse issues
    and pretend they were not an issue. FCM Fielder testified that Father “would
    act like he didn’t know [Mother] was using[.]” 
    Id. at 122.
    [30]   As such, there is a reasonable probability that the conditions for Children’s
    continued placement outside of Father’s care, namely Mother’s presence in the
    home and Father’s inability to independently care for the Children, will not be
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 22 of 29
    remedied. As previously noted, Father’s current work schedule prevents him
    from being able to independently care for Children and although he may intend
    to obtain flexible employment, he has not done so. At the fact-finding hearing,
    Father admitted that at the outset of this case, he was not able to care for
    Children and have his job at the same time without Mother’s assistance. See Tr.,
    Vol. II at 36. Although he indicated at the termination hearing that he would be
    able to care for them on his own, he offered no evidence that his circumstances
    had changed since the Children were removed. Therefore, there is no question
    that Father cannot care for Children without the assistance of Mother,
    inevitably exposing Children to her substance abuse and related issues. And
    Father testified that “[t]here’s been a few times [he]’s asked [Mother] to leave
    [the home], but [they] would work through it” and it was his intention to
    continue to work on his relationship with Mother. 
    Id. at 39.
    Therefore, there is
    a reasonable probability that Mother’s presence in the home and Father’s
    reliance on Mother for childcare will continue.
    [31]   Although Father is well-aware of Mother’s struggle with substance abuse, he
    has chosen to remain ignorant of the problem and its effect on Children.
    Instead, not only does Father refuse to make any changes to remedy the
    conditions preventing his Children from safely returning to his care, such as
    obtaining flexible employment, he has actively prevented it by interfering with
    Mother’s services. Father has demonstrated an unwillingness to remedy
    Mother’s substance abuse issues inside the home through a pattern of
    interfering with Mother’s participation and progress in services. Therefore, we
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 23 of 29
    conclude that DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a
    reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in Children’s removal and
    continued placement outside of Father’s care would not be remedied. 6
    2. Best Interests of Children
    [32]   Father also challenges the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of his
    parental rights is in Children’s best interests. In determining the best interests of
    a child, the juvenile court must “look beyond the factors identified by the DCS
    and look to the totality of the evidence.” In re H.L., 
    915 N.E.2d 145
    , 149 (Ind.
    Ct. App. 2009). In doing so, the court must subordinate the interest of the
    parent to those of the child. 
    A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158
    . A juvenile court need
    not wait until a child is irreversibly influenced by a deficient lifestyle such that
    his or her physical, mental, and social growth are permanently impaired before
    terminating the parent-child relationship. In re E.S., 
    762 N.E.2d 1287
    , 1290
    (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “A child’s need for permanency is an important
    consideration in determining the best interests of a child, and the testimony of
    the child’s guardian ad litem supports a finding that termination is in the child’s
    best interests.” In re D.L., 
    814 N.E.2d 1022
    , 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans.
    denied.
    6
    The juvenile court also concluded that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the
    Children’s well-being. Father challenges this conclusion, but because we have concluded that DCS met its
    burden of showing there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in removal would not be
    remedied, and because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, we need not
    address whether the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Children’s well-being. See 
    I.A., 903 N.E.2d at 153
    .
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020                  Page 24 of 29
    [33]   At the fact-finding hearing, the GAL testified that she believed it was in the
    Children’s best interests for Parents’ parental rights to be terminated. She
    testified that adoption would provide Children with permanency and that
    Children have stability in their current placements. See Tr., Vol. II at 141. FCM
    Fielder also testified that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is
    in Children’s best interests because Parents “are not able to provide for
    [Children] at this time. They haven’t completed any of their treatment goals,
    the main one for [Mother] is the substance abuse.” 
    Id. at 128.
    [34]   We have previously held that the recommendation by both the case manager
    and child advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that the
    conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by
    clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests.
    
    A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158
    -59. Here, the FCM and GAL both testified that
    termination of Parents’ parental rights is in Children’s best interests. Given this
    evidence, the juvenile court did not err in concluding that termination of
    Parents’ parental rights is in Children’s best interests.
    3. Satisfactory Plan
    [35]   Finally, Father challenges the juvenile court’s conclusion that adoption by
    Children’s current placement is a satisfactory plan. He argues that “leaving his
    Children divided between three adoptive placements cannot be considered a
    ‘satisfactory plan[.]’” Father’s Br. at 38. A DCS plan is satisfactory when the
    plan is to attempt to find suitable parents to adopt the children. 
    A.S., 17 N.E.3d at 1007
    . The plan need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 25 of 29
    direction the child will go after the parent-child relationship is terminated. A.J.
    v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 
    881 N.E.2d 706
    , 719 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2008), trans. denied.
    [36]   Here, DCS’s plan for each of Children is adoption by their current foster
    parents. Although Children are currently in three different foster homes,
    placement in separate adoptive homes does not render a plan unsatisfactory. See
    
    A.S., 17 N.E.3d at 1007
    (noting that a plan is satisfactory even if the plan is for
    the children to have separate adoptive homes), trans. denied. Thus, the evidence
    supports the juvenile court’s determination that adoption by Children’s current
    foster parents is a satisfactory plan.
    [37]   DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence each element required by
    Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b); therefore, the juvenile court’s judgment
    terminating Father’s parental rights is not clearly erroneous.
    IV. Mother’s Appeal
    [38]   We note that Mother does not challenge any of the juvenile court’s specific
    findings, and those unchallenged findings are accepted as true. McMaster v.
    McMaster, 
    681 N.E.2d 744
    , 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Mother argues that DCS
    did not present sufficient evidence to terminate her parental rights because she
    did not have a fair opportunity to engage in services as a result of her anxiety.
    See Brief of Appellant [Mother] at 24. She maintains that DCS should have
    allowed her additional time to work on managing her mental health so she
    could be able to successfully complete services, which may have saved her
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 26 of 29
    relationship with Children. In essence, Mother argues that DCS did not prove
    there is a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to Children’s
    removal will not be remedied.7 As noted above, we engage in a two-step
    analysis to determine whether the conditions that led to removal are likely to be
    remedied: we first identify the conditions that led to Children’s removal, and
    then determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions
    will not be remedied. 
    K.E., 39 N.E.3d at 647
    .
    [39]   Here, Children were removed from Mother’s care due to her ongoing substance
    abuse. The trial court found that Mother failed to complete services and failed
    to address her substance abuse issues. During the CHINS proceeding, the
    juvenile court ordered Mother to engage in home-based therapy, complete
    home-based case management, submit to drug screens, and successfully
    complete a substance abuse assessment. Mother’s home-based therapist, Felix
    McGee, testified that he and Mother worked on her anxiety and she made the
    most progress in that area. But Mother had not accomplished the goal of sober
    living and therefore he could not recommend Children be returned to her care.
    Although Mother completed three substance abuse assessments, she was never
    able to complete the recommended substance abuse treatment. Sultzer testified
    that Mother was looking for substance abuse treatment that is “not really
    available” – one-on-one outpatient treatment. Tr., Vol. II at 77. Mother did not
    7
    Mother does not challenge the trial court’s conclusions regarding the threat to Children’s well-being, the
    best interests of Children, or the plan for Children’s care and treatment.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020                 Page 27 of 29
    successfully complete any case management goals and was discharged
    unsuccessfully for lack of communication. In addition, Mother often failed to
    engage in drug screens and when asked to, she would concede that a test would
    be positive for drug use. In fact, Mother testified at the termination hearing that
    she would test positive for illicit substances if tested that day. All of Mother’s
    service providers indicated an awareness of her anxiety and demonstrated
    efforts to accommodate or overcome the limitations her anxiety placed on her
    participation. Nonetheless, Mother did not show any progress in addressing the
    reason Children were removed: her substance abuse.
    [40]   DCS is generally required to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify
    families; however, failure to provide services does not negate a necessary
    element of the termination statute and require reversal. In re E.E., 
    736 N.E.2d 791
    , 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Mother’s argument is simply a request for this
    court to reweigh the evidence, which is the province of the juvenile court, not
    this court. See 
    Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147
    . We have often noted that evidence of a
    parent’s pattern of unwillingness or lack of commitment to address parenting
    issues and to cooperate with services demonstrates the requisite reasonable
    probability that the conditions will not change. See, e.g., Lang v. Starke Cty. OFC,
    
    861 N.E.2d 366
    , 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Such is the case here.
    [41]   DCS offered Mother several opportunities to participate in services to address
    her anxiety and obtain sobriety. Substance abuse is the underlying issue for
    Mother, and she has failed to complete substance abuse programs and
    additional services offered despite being counseled to participate for over two
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 28 of 29
    years. Rather than doing what is necessary to provide a safe and stable
    environment for Children free of substance abuse, Mother has continued to
    voluntarily abuse substances and not engage fully with services available to
    assist her. Because the juvenile court’s unchallenged findings clearly and
    convincingly support its ultimate decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights
    to Children, we conclude the juvenile court’s order is not clearly erroneous. See,
    e.g., In re 
    E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 644
    (findings regarding a parent’s continued non-
    compliance with services supported juvenile court’s conclusion the conditions
    under which children were removed from the parent’s care would not be
    remedied).
    Conclusion
    [42]   We conclude that DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the juvenile
    court’s determination to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to
    Children and thus, the judgment of the juvenile court is not clearly erroneous.
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    [43]   Affirmed.
    Bradford, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1390 | January 10, 2020   Page 29 of 29