In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.S.P. (Minor Child) and T.P. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 79A04-1705-JT-989

Child A.S.P. was adjudicated CHINS twice (2011 and 2014) after testing positive for methamphetamine and reports of parental neglect and parental substance use.
2014 CHINS case required Mother to complete parenting/substance-abuse assessments, home-based case management, drug screens, maintain safe housing, and attend visitation; she participated inconsistently.
Mother had periods of engagement (including a five-month trial home visit) but the trial home visit ended due to unsafe/unsanitary housing, poor supervision, and Mother’s substance use; DCS documented relapses and missed drug screens.
Mother struggled with unstable housing, eviction, unpaid utilities, and prioritized discretionary spending over basic needs according to findings.
A.S.P. displayed behavioral and mental-health issues (Reactive Attachment Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Disruptive Behavior); he had multiple placements and was doing well in his current foster home, with adoption by that foster home proposed.
DCS filed to terminate parental rights in June 2016; the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds and best-interest factors supported termination and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Mother's Argument	DCS's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to removal will NOT be remedied	Mother contends she is currently stable and has remedied the conditions that led to removal	DCS pointed to Mother’s repeated noncompliance, relapses, unsafe/unsanitary housing, inconsistent service participation, and habitual conduct indicating low likelihood of lasting change	Court affirmed: unchallenged findings show reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests	Mother argued termination was not shown to be in A.S.P.’s best interests	DCS (and CASA) argued the child needs stability and specialized care that Mother cannot provide; foster parents offer permanency	Court affirmed: totality of circumstances supports termination and adoption plan as in child’s best interests

In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing findings and conclusions in parental termination cases)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are fundamental but may be subordinated to child’s interests)
Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (appellate standard refusing reversal unless evidence positively requires different conclusion)
In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard and scope re: child’s threatened development)
In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (assessing parent’s fitness at termination hearing and considering habitual conduct)
In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (considering both initial removal reasons and continued placement bases)
In re Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (DCS need only show reasonable probability parent’s behavior will not change)
McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (permissible factors: substance abuse, housing, employment, neglect)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency and stability as key best-interest considerations)
In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (best-interest determined by totality of circumstances)
In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (service provider testimony can support best-interest finding)