In the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.M. (Minor Child), and S.M. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.), 49A02-1605-JT-1028

Mother (S.M.) has two children; earlier CHINS proceedings arose from domestic violence and her mental-health concerns and cognitive delays.
Psychological evaluation found Mother has cognitive delay (extremely low IQ), PTSD, and major depression; evaluator warned she would need support/supervision to parent safely.
M.M. adjudicated CHINS after birth; Mother repeatedly had unstable, often unsuitable housing, financial instability (SSI only), and violated a safety plan by allowing unsupervised father contact, leading to M.M.’s removal in July 2014.
Mother participated in reunification services (home-based case management, therapy, evaluations) but made only minimal progress: poor budgeting, frequent moves/homelessness, continued untreated depression (refused medication), and limited parenting capacity during supervised visits.
DCS filed to terminate parental rights (July 2015). After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and terminated Mother’s rights; Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence under IC 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) (i.e., reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied / continuation poses a threat)	DCS: Mother’s long-standing housing instability, untreated major depression, cognitive limitations, refusal to seek employment, and minimal progress in services show a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied	Mother: Evidence was insufficient; individual findings (income, mental health, cognitive delay) do not, alone, prove the statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence	Affirmed. Court held DCS met its burden to show a reasonable probability the conditions leading to M.M.’s removal will not be remedied, so termination was proper

In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (standard for appellate review of termination—do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
S.L. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate review and evidentiary considerations in termination cases)
In re K.W., 12 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (termination as last resort; statutory framework)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (State must prove elements by clear and convincing evidence)
In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (court must assess parent’s fitness at time of termination and consider changed conditions)
In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (court may consider bases for continued placement outside the home)
In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory elements are disjunctive; proof of one suffices for termination)
In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unchallenged findings accepted as true on appeal)