In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.T.H. (Minor Child), N.M.H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A03-1606-JT-1457

Mother (N.M.H.) gave birth in 2012; hospital staff removed the infant (T.T.H.) after concerns about Mother’s mental status and unsafe conduct while Child was hospitalized. DCS filed CHINS and Child was removed in November 2012.
Mother has an extensive DCS history and long‑standing mental‑health diagnoses (bipolar, schizoaffective, PTSD, personality disorder); she had multiple inpatient psychiatric stays during the CHINS case.
The dispositional order required mental‑health treatment, medication compliance, supervised therapeutic visitation, home‑based services, and information releases; Mother intermittently engaged and repeatedly failed to comply with or sustain recommended services and medication.
Mother moved to California (Oct 2014–July 2015), had sporadic contact with DCS, and refused to provide some inpatient records. Visits were suspended at times for safety concerns and signs of active psychosis.
DCS changed the permanency plan to termination and adoption in April 2015; Child was placed in a pre‑adoptive home with a half‑brother and was reported to be thriving. Trial on termination was held Feb–Mar 2016; the court terminated Mother’s parental rights in May 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Whether conditions that led to removal will be remedied	Mother argued she had complied with some services and could remedy the conditions	DCS argued Mother’s persistent, untreated, and episodic mental illness, poor medication adherence, hospitalizations, refusal to provide records, and instability made remediation unlikely	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability exists that conditions will not be remedied
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests	Mother argued the court should not terminate based on reweighing of evidence; contended progress had been made	DCS argued Child needed permanency and Mother’s instability and untreated mental illness made reunification unsafe and unlikely	Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence supports that termination is in Child’s best interests
Whether DCS had a satisfactory plan for Child’s care and treatment	Mother contended plan was inadequate because placement was recent and DCS had not yet visited the home	DCS argued adoption is a satisfactory plan and Child was placed with a family member and doing well	Court: Adoption plan found satisfactory; Mother conceded adoption could be satisfactory

Bailey v. Tippecanoe Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (parental rights protected but subordinated to child’s welfare)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two‑tier review for special findings and conclusions)
R.Y. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear and convincing standard in termination cases)
E.M. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re E.M.), 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two‑step analysis identifying removal conditions and projecting likelihood of remediation)
Castro v. State Office of Family and Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (adoption is generally a satisfactory post‑termination plan)