In the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.P. and A.P. (Minor Children), and C.P. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A04-1604-JT-752

Mother (C.P.) is parent of S.P. (b. 2010) and A.P. (b. 2012); children were removed July 2013 and adjudicated CHINS based on neglect and Mother's substance abuse and unstable housing.
Court ordered a Parent Participation Plan requiring substance‑abuse assessment/treatment, supervised visitation, housing, counseling, and case management; DCS provided repeated referrals and services over ~3 years.
Mother repeatedly failed to complete assessments/treatment, tested positive for illegal substances, missed or cancelled most supervised visits, and did not obtain stable housing or consistent engagement with services.
Children remained in foster care, later placed with their grandmother (who has custody of Mother’s older children) and is willing to adopt. Permanency plan changed to termination in March 2015; termination petitions filed July 2015.
Juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights March 9, 2016, finding (inter alia) long‑standing noncompliance with services, unsuccessful remediation of removal conditions, adoption by grandmother as a satisfactory plan, and termination in children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditions leading to removal are likely to be remedied	Mother: insufficient evidence that conditions will not be remedied; she can improve	DCS: Mother repeatedly failed to complete services, tested positive, lacked housing and follow‑through	Court: Sufficient evidence that conditions are unlikely to be remedied due to extended noncompliance
Whether adoption is a satisfactory permanency plan	Mother: transfer of custody or open adoption with grandmother would be preferable	DCS: Plan is adoption by grandmother (who already has custody of older children and is willing to adopt)	Court: Adoption by grandmother is a satisfactory plan
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	Mother: existing permanent placement with grandmother and parental bond mean termination is not needed	DCS: Mother’s instability and failure to remediate create uncertainty; children need permanency	Court: Termination is in children’s best interests given mother’s lack of progress and children’s need for stability
Whether juvenile court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous	Mother: challenges sufficiency of evidence supporting findings	DCS: findings supported by testimony and service records	Court: Findings are supported; appellate standard highly deferential, no clear error

In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (standard of review in termination cases is highly deferential)
In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (affirming focus on evidence favorable to termination judgment)
In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (termination reversed only if clearly erroneous)
Bester v. Lake County Office of Family and Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (purpose of termination is child protection and preservation of welfare)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (DCS burden is clear and convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
In re A.C.C., 682 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (court may consider services offered and parent’s response)
McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (factors properly considered include substance abuse, neglect, housing, and responsiveness to services)
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)
In re A.K., 755 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (adoption can be a satisfactory permanency plan)
In re A.B., 887 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (testimony of CASA can support best‑interest finding)
In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence in termination appeals)