MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Jul 31 2017, 9:42 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark A. Delgado Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monticello, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Newell
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Termination of the Parent- July 31, 2017
Child Relationship of M.A. Court of Appeals Case No.
(Minor Child) and 91A02-1702-JT-352
K.S. (Mother), Appeal from the White Circuit
Court
Appellant-Respondent,
The Honorable Robert W.
v. Thacker, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Indiana Department of Child 91C01-1607-JT-14
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary
[1] K.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, arguing that the
evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] K.S. (“Mother”) and T.A. (“Father”) are the biological parents of M.A.
(“Child”), who was born in July 2003. In May 2014, Father, who had primary
custody of Child at the time, suffered his second heroin overdose in just over a
month.1 The Department of Child Services (DCS) removed Child from
Father’s home and placed him with his paternal grandfather. DCS did not
place Child with Mother “due to allegations of drug abuse by her.” Appellant’s
App. Vol. II p. 85. According to DCS’s initial report, “[Child] also disclosed
that his mother has ‘smoked drugs’ within the past couple of weeks, however, it
is unknown what substance she was smoking and she said she would stop.” Id.
at 82. Also, Father reported methamphetamine use by Mother. Tr. p. 80.
[3] After removing Child, DCS filed a petition alleging that he was a child in need
of services (CHINS). Mother and Father admitted the allegations in the
petition, and on July 8, 2014, the trial court entered a dispositional order. The
dispositional order required Mother to, among other things, abstain from illegal
1
Father said that the second incident involved passing out from drinking too much, but he acknowledged
using heroin the same day, and a DCS representative testified that Father had “experienced another
overdose[.]” Tr. p. 69.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 9
drug use and submit to drug screens. Unfortunately, Mother could not escape
her drug addiction.
[4] Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and/or amphetamine in
September 2014, December 2014, January 2015, August 2015, and November
2015. She also refused to submit to drug screens multiple times. She
successfully completed a sixty-day residential treatment program between
November 2015 and January 2016, but she failed to participate in relapse
prevention, and she failed drug screens in February, March, and April of 2016.
Then, in May, she was charged with possession of methamphetamine and
possession of paraphernalia.
[5] Mother’s drug use led to other problems in her efforts to reunify with Child.
Early in the CHINS case, she was seeing Child as many as four days a week,
including some overnights, but that time was reduced after she tested positive
for meth in September 2014. She failed to maintain consistent employment,
and she had trouble keeping the utilities on at her house “throughout the case.”
Tr. p. 81. She was hard to reach, missed multiple case-management
appointments, and missed visitations with Child. At least once Mother failed a
drug screen while Child was visiting her, and Child found drug paraphernalia in
Mother’s home while visiting her. Mother also admitted to being “involved
with someone who was abusing drugs” at one point during the case. Id. at 53.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 9
[6] On July 18, 2016, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights.2
The termination hearing was held five months later, in December. At the
hearing, DCS presented evidence that Mother had tested positive for meth on
October 12 and October 27, and Mother admitted that she had used meth even
more recently. Mother acknowledged that she had been addicted to meth for
almost nine years. Mother also testified that she had started a new job (part-
time) just two weeks before the hearing, that she had no license and no
operating vehicle, that her meth and paraphernalia charges were still pending,
and that her electricity, water, and gas had just recently been restarted after
having been disconnected for four months.
[7] The family case manager testified about Mother’s inconsistency with services
and her general lack of progress. While she acknowledged that at the time of
the hearing Mother was working, had a place to live, and appeared to have
some bond with Child, she confirmed that DCS was still pursuing termination.
Id. at 98. Child’s guardian ad litem, who had been involved in the case since
the initial removal, testified that Mother “doesn’t seem to have the ability to
have the discipline to stay away from substances that have caused her to be
unavailable for her child” and that “terminating [Mother’s] rights is what’s in
[Child’s] best interest[.]” Id. at 112, 114. A month after the hearing, the trial
2
Father had signed a consent to adoption in April 2016.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 4 of 9
court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment terminating
Mother’s parental rights.
[8] Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Mother contends that DCS did not present sufficient evidence to support the
trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. We first note that,
notwithstanding the highly fact-sensitive nature of Mother’s appeal, the
argument section of her brief does not include a single citation to her appendix
or the record on appeal. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides, in part,
that each of the appellant’s contentions “must be supported by citations to . . .
the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” Failure to comply
with this rule constitutes waiver of the unsupported contentions. Pierce v. State,
29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (“A litigant who fails to support his
arguments with appropriate citations to legal authority and record evidence
waives those arguments for our review.”); City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, 988
N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind. 2013).
[10] There is another significant problem with Mother’s argument. Trial courts are
required to enter findings of fact that support the entry of their conclusions in
termination cases, see Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(c), and Mother acknowledges that
our role on appeal is limited to determining whether the evidence supports the
findings and whether the findings support the conclusions, see Appellant’s Br.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 5 of 9
pp. 8-9 (citing In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied).
Having done so, however, Mother does not challenge any of the trial court’s
fifty-six findings of fact, nor does she dispute that those findings support the
trial court’s conclusions.
[11] We could affirm the trial court’s judgment on either of these two grounds.
Nonetheless, we have reviewed the evidence, and it is plainly sufficient to
support the trial court’s decision.
[12] When DCS asks a court to terminate a parent’s rights, it bears the significant
burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that such an outcome is
appropriate. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014); see also Ind. Code §§ 31-
34-12-2, 31-37-14-2. But once the trial court concludes that DCS has carried
that burden, our review on appeal is highly deferential. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at
642. We consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, and we will not reweigh
the evidence or attempt to judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. We will
reverse a termination judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.
[13] Here, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support four
conclusions under the termination statute, Indiana Code section 31-35-2-
4(b)(2): (1) “The child has been removed from the parent at least six (6) months
under a dispositional decree”; (2) “There is a reasonable probability that the
conditions which resulted in child’s removal and continued placement outside
the home will not be remedied by Mother”; (3) “Termination of parental rights
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 6 of 9
is in child’s best interests”; and (4) “There is a satisfactory plan for the care and
treatment of child, that being adoption.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 39-40.
Mother does not challenge the first conclusion or the last.
[14] Her first argument is that “[t]he State failed to meet their burden by showing
that Mother was provided an adequate statutory opportunity to provide care to
[Child] without the coercive intervention of the Department of Child services,
thereby prohibiting Mother from showing that she was ready and able to
provide proper care to [Child].” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. She contends that “there
was no prejudice to the State or [Child] by continuing to assist [Mother] in the
transition to becoming the sole custodial parent of the minor child.” Id. at 11.
In short, Mother argues that DCS should have given her more time to
stabilize—specifically, to get off meth—before moving to terminate her rights.
We read this as a claim that the evidence does not support the trial court’s
conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the reason Child was not
placed with Mother upon removal from Father will not be remedied. We
disagree.
[15] The reason Child was not placed with Mother was Mother’s meth use, and
there is abundant evidence that this problem will not be remedied. Mother
tested positive for meth numerous times while the CHINS case was pending
and twice more after DCS filed for termination. She spent sixty days in
treatment but then failed to complete relapse prevention and continued using
meth. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother was facing charges of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 7 of 9
possession of meth and paraphernalia.3 Thirty months had passed since the
CHINS case started, and Mother had showed little to no progress in
overcoming her meth addiction or the instability that went with it. The trial
court did not err, clearly or otherwise, by concluding that there is a reasonable
probability that the reason Child was not placed with Mother will not be
remedied.4
[16] Mother spends much of her brief arguing that the evidence is insufficient to
support the trial court’s conclusion that termination is in Child’s best interests.
But the guardian ad litem and the family case manager both testified in support
of termination. We have repeatedly held that such testimony, when coupled
with clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that resulted in removal
or the reasons for placement outside of the home will not be remedied, is
sufficient to support a trial court’s conclusion that termination is in a child’s
best interests. See, e.g., In re S.E., 15 N.E.3d 37, 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied; In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied; In re I.A., 903 N.E.3d 146, 155-56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); In re A.I., 825
3
We are aware that Mother was eventually found not guilty on the meth-possession charge (but guilty of
possessing paraphernalia). This does not alter our analysis, especially in light of the undisputed fact that
Mother used meth while those charges were pending.
4
The record makes clear that Mother’s meth use was the central issue in this case, but one would not gather
that from reading her brief, which makes only a handful of general references to the topic. We strongly urge
Mother’s attorney, who represented Mother throughout the trial-court proceedings, to be more forthcoming
in future appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 8 of 9
N.E.2d 798, 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Therefore, we cannot say
that the trial court erred in this regard.
[17] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1702-JT-352 | July 31, 2017 Page 9 of 9