Opinion
23A-JT-2473
05-15-2024
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.H., Mother, and A.H. and J.W.H., Children, v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner T. H., Appellant-Respondent
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Lisa Diane Manning Plainfield, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Katherine A. Cornelius Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Lawrence Circuit Court The Honorable Nathan G. Nikirk, Judge The Honorable Anah Hewetson Gouty, Referee Trial Court Cause Nos. 47C01-2301-JT-39, 47C01-2301-JT-40
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Lisa Diane Manning
Plainfield, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Foley, Judge.
[¶1] T.H. ("Mother") is the biological mother of J.W.H. and A.H. (together, "the Children"), and she appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to the Children. Mother raises one issue for our review: whether the trial court's judgment was clearly erroneous because the trial court's judgment was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Mother is the biological mother of J.W.H., born July 20, 2015, and A.H., born June 27, 2016. The Children have different biological fathers, each of whom consented to adoption and do not participate in this appeal.
[¶3] On October 14, 2021, the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") removed the Children from Mother's care on an emergency basis due to allegations of abuse and neglect. At the time of removal, the home conditions were dirty, there was a registered sex offender living in the home with the Children, the Children went to school dirty, and J.W.H. went to school without underwear. Additionally, A.H. exhibited sexually maladaptive behaviors and was unable to control his emotions. Mother was aware that A.H. had touched J.W.H. sexually. Further, it was learned that the Children had been exposed to years of domestic violence inflicted on Mother. Since their removal in October 2021, the Children have not returned to Mother's care.
[¶4] On the same date that the Children were removed, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children were children in need of services ("CHINS"). This petition contained allegations that Mother had battered the Children, allowed registered sex offenders and known drug abusers to live in the home with the Children, failed to protect the Children from sexual and physical abuse, failed to ensure the Children's school attendance, the home conditions were dirty and unsafe, and failed to ensure the Children obtain therapeutic care to address their maladaptive sexual behaviors and violent aggression. On December 7, Mother admitted Children were CHINS and "stipulate[d] and agree[d] that the DCS would be able to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the necessary elements and factual allegations as alleged in the [CHINS petition] to establish the [Children are] CHINS." Ex. Vol. p. 64. J.W.H.'s father had outstanding warrants for his arrest, prior criminal history for, among other things, failing to register as a sex offender, and prior DCS history where he was substantiated for child molesting and rape. The father of A.H. also had an active warrant for his arrest, had a prior criminal history for, among other things, neglect of a dependent, and had a DCS history for child molesting and neglect. Both fathers were deemed to be inappropriate caregivers for their respective children by DCS.
[¶5] On December 20, 2021, the trial court adjudicated the Children to be CHINS based on Mother's agreed entry. On January 26, 2022, the trial court issued its dispositional order, which ordered that the Children remain placed outside of Mother's care and granted wardship of the Children to DCS. In its dispositional order, the trial court found that the Children needed a safe and stable home free of substance abuse, neglect, violence, and sexually inappropriate behavior. The trial court ordered Mother to stay in regular contact with DCS; complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations; participate in, and demonstrate, positive changes in the lives of the family due to the participation in home-based counseling; attend all scheduled visitations with the Children; provide the Children with a safe and secure environment that is free from abuse and neglect and be an effective caregiver; and maintain safe and stable housing. Mother was also ordered to submit to random drug screens, abstain from using illegal drugs or misusing prescription medications, and complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all recommendations.
[¶6] After the dispositional order, Mother struggled to consistently participate in services, including visitation with the Children. She also failed to regularly communicate with DCS and continued to be unable to maintain stable housing. Mother has several health challenges, including diabetes and kidney disease. Additionally, Mother is developmentally delayed, which required service providers to make special accommodations. Over the course of the underlying case, Mother was often hospitalized as a result of her kidney disease, including eight hospital stays in 2023 alone. On January 31, 2023, DCS filed its petitions to terminate the parent-child relationship between Mother and the Children. The termination hearing took place over four days, June 12, 19, 27, and August 10, 2023.
[¶7] At the hearing, evidence was presented that, despite the requirement that Mother was to call in daily to see if she should submit to random drug screening, between November 8, 2021, and April 30, 2022, Mother failed to call in for drug testing 213 times and had forty-six "unforgiven" missed drug screens. Ex. Vol. pp. 126-37. Mother provided only ten random drug screens while the case was pending: one was positive, and the rest were negative. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamine on April 12, 2023, and did not submit to any drug screens thereafter for the duration of the case. In August 2022, Mother completed a substance abuse assessment with Nikkia O'Bannon ("O'Bannon") at Centerstone. During the assessment, Mother told O'Bannon that she used marijuana and muscle relaxers daily. Mother obtained the muscle relaxers without a prescription on "the streets" and was caught in possession of the pills, causing her to face criminal consequences. Tr. Vol. 3 p. 78. As a result of the assessment, O'Bannon diagnosed Mother with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and recommended a trauma group but specified that Mother needed to address her substance abuse issues first. Mother participated in substance abuse treatment at Centerstone from August 2022 until November 2022, but she was discontinued from Centerstone due to lack of attendance and engagement. Mother also participated in Transitions for substance abuse treatment in 2022, but there was little evidence presented regarding services there.
[¶8] Lori Branam ("Branam") testified that she provided Mother with home-based case management services from December 2021 through August 2022. Mother completed a parenting assessment but did not follow through with the recommended services. These home-based case management services were geared, in part, to address parenting skills. Mother only attended approximately sixty percent of her sessions with Branam and, after making some progress, Mother regressed because she did not see any need to change or engage in services. During this time, Branam had to report Mother's living situation to adult protective services twice because Mother was living with her mother in a home illegally due to not being on the lease and without electricity. While Branam worked with Mother, Mother's living situation was not safe for her or others as she had a history of living with people she should not be around and who had a history of being violent against her. Branam referred Mother to services that could assist her as a victim of domestic violence, but Mother was not interested in this assistance. While meeting with Branam, Mother admitted she had been the victim of domestic violence from former partners when the Children were present and that she had also been sexually assaulted while the Children were in the room. When Branam spoke to Mother about how important it was to find a safe place to live, Mother told Branam that "she was aware that she could lose her children, but if she had to choose between her boyfriend and her children, she'd pick her boyfriend." Tr. Vol. 3 p. 108. Mother last met with Branam in August 2022, and her referral was closed as unsuccessful because of Mother's lack of participation.
[¶9] In January 2023, Alison Briggs ("Briggs") began providing Mother with homebased casework services. Between January and July 19, 2023, they met fewer than ten times although they were supposed to meet once a week. Mother's referral to Briggs was to assist in obtaining housing, getting Mother's driver's license, and improving parenting skills. But, Mother said she did not wish to work on parenting skills because at that time, she was not seeing the Children, and there was "too much emotion" to talk about the Children. Id. at 130. Although Mother's communication with Briggs was sporadic, Briggs continued to contact Mother every week to see if Mother would meet with her, but Mother did not attend. The referral was still open at the time of the termination hearing, but Mother was not actively participating in the services.
[¶10] On May 17, 2022, Mother completed a comprehensive psychological evaluation with Dr. Cindy Ross ("Dr. Ross"), who diagnosed Mother with a mild intellectual disability, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Based on Mother's IQ scores, it was determined that she would need assistance with more complex daily living skills, parenting, budgeting, and navigating the healthcare system. Mother had "[p]retty strong avoidance, pretty strong dependency issues" and relied on others to do some things for her that she could have done for herself. Id. at 20. Dr. Ross recommended Mother continue with her therapy and case management services to help gain more assertiveness and independence and that she needed to gain some specific skills to help her in her areas of need, including trauma, anxiety, and dependency. Dr. Ross testified that Mother needed to engage in the services, but nothing in her cognitive or mental health diagnosis caused her to be unable to parent.
[¶11] From October 2021 to September 2022, Ciera Good ("Good") provided individual therapy to Mother along with supervised therapeutic visits between Mother and the Children. Mother was hesitant to participate in therapy with Good and told Good that Mother attended their therapy sessions because it made her "look good" to the court and not because Mother felt she needed therapy. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 53. Although Mother had a strong rapport with Good, Mother's inconsistency and lack of follow-through made it difficult for her to make progress. As to the therapeutic visits, Good testified that they did not go well, and Good had to step in to do much of the parenting of the Children during the visits. Good had safety concerns because Mother generally lacked the ability to supervise the Children, was not aware of the Children's needs, and often did not respond to their needs. Mother would lose sight of the Children when in public places and once lost contact of A.H. near a construction site where he could have been injured.
[¶12] Good testified that Mother struggled to engage and communicate with the Children. When Mother had visitation with the Children, she would prioritize her wants over the Children's needs. For example, Mother would buy lottery scratch off tickets, vapes, and sodas and bring those to visits, but she would fail to bring appropriate food for the Children. Mother would make inappropriate and negative comments about DCS or the case to the Children, and one time when the Children were acting up, she told the Children, "you better calm down if you ever want to see me again." Tr. Vol. 2 p. 58.
[¶13] Kandi Cochran ("Cochran") from Ireland Services supervised visits from September 2022 until January 2023. Although Mother was supposed to have two visits a week, she only came to nine visits during those four months. Mother usually brought her mother ("Maternal Grandmother") with her to the visitations, who would do most of the engaging and playing with the Children. Maternal Grandmother would often redirect Mother and help her engage with the Children during the visitations. Mother last saw A.H. in December 2022 and last had contact with J.W.H. through a virtual visit in January 2023.
[¶14] In January 2023, Mother and her treatment team agreed to suspend visitations because Mother had been in a car accident when returning from a visitation with the Children, decided the accident was the Children's fault, and was afraid to travel to visitations thereafter. Mother worked with David Schlegel of Ireland Home Based Services to overcome her anxiety about traveling in cars and other past trauma. Although they made some progress, Mother was generally not engaged in the treatment. Her case was closed as unsuccessful after Mother asked for this service to stop.
[¶15] Family case manager Debra Kerr ("FCM Kerr") was responsible for the Children's cases beginning around August 2022 until the termination hearing. Mother did not communicate regularly with FCM Kerr during the case and did not keep DCS informed of where she was living. Mother lived in at least five different places since October 2021, and Mother refused to allow DCS access to some of her different homes. FCM Kerr testified that, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother still lacked stable housing and continued to deny DCS access to where she claimed to be living. At the time of the hearing, Mother had stable income through disability payments she received with Maternal Grandmother as the payee. FCM Kerr stated that Mother had not proven her sobriety at the time of the hearing because she had tested positive for methamphetamine in April 2023 and refused to submit to drug screens thereafter. FCM Kerr spoke with Mother twice in July 2023 about the positive screen from April and explained that Mother could not have the Children returned because of her continued positive and missed drug screens and because she continued to have violent men and sex offenders live in her home. Mother became angry and left the DCS office.
[¶16] Mother testified at the evidentiary hearing that she did not feel she needed any more assistance to be a more effective parent. At the time of the hearing, Mother still had not obtained her driver's license despite her assertion that she had taken the written portion every day for twelve years. Mother suffered from unmanaged diabetes and stage one kidney disease and was hospitalized for these conditions eight times in 2023. Mother was aware that her drug use negatively affected her diabetes and kidney disease. Mother did not always take her diabetes medications as prescribed, and complications from the unmanaged disease caused Mother to pass out and need medical care. On April 13, 2023, Mother was hospitalized for high blood sugar and tested positive for use of methamphetamine.
[¶17] Evidence was presented that the Children received therapy over the course of the case to work on developing emotional coping skills, self-regulation of emotions, positive decision making, processing trauma, and other topics. J.W.H. was diagnosed with PTSD and urinates on herself when she wants attention or becomes overwhelmed. To make progress in therapy, J.W.H. needed to be able to express herself and to understand questions and how to respond. Through therapy, work was being done on how J.W.H. could learn to understand questions either verbally or through play, and a parent was needed who could provide consistency, routine, rules, boundaries, and stability for J.W.H.
[¶18] J.W.H. was placed with her paternal aunt ("Aunt") on December 17, 2022, and continued this placement at the time of the hearing. J.W.H. was doing well in her placement with Aunt, and since her placement, J.W.H. had learned to read and was excited to go to school. When she first came to stay with Aunt, J.W.H. would punch holes in the wall and scrape paint off the wall. Although her behavior improved, it deteriorated closer to the time of the hearing because she knew "something's going on" about the case. Tr. Vol. 3 p. 92. Aunt testified that when J.W.H. gets upset, she would urinate on herself or on the bed of the person who was angering her and would specifically get angry when she does not get the attention she wants. Aunt was committed to having J.W.H. attend therapy and services to treat her behaviors and wished to adopt J.W.H. Aunt believed J.W.H. would be unsafe when in Mother's care.
[¶19] At the time of the hearing, A.H. was placed with a foster family in Attica, Indiana, and was doing well in the placement. A.H. had previously been placed with another aunt but had to be removed from that placement. Although he had only been placed with his current placement for a short period, A.H.'s foster parents wished to adopt him. At the time of the hearing, A.H. was participating in a soccer program and had visited his new school to help with his transition in the fall.
[¶20] The court appointed special advocate, Melissa Kelley ("CASA Kelley"), testified that she believed it was in the Children's best interests for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. J.W.H. showed behaviors suggesting she had been sexually abused, and she believed it would take years for the Children to work through the trauma they experienced when they lived with Mother. Mother was unable to provide for the Children's needs for stability because of her frequent moves and her habit of moving in with men who were a threat to the Children's safety. In CASA Kelley's opinion, Mother's ability to ensure the Children's safety was less now than when the case started. Mother had stopped submitting to drug screens, her health had deteriorated, and she had stopped participating in therapy and home-based counseling. CASA Kelley believed that Mother was living with Maternal Grandmother at the time of the hearing, but Mother denied CASA Kelley permission to visit the home, so she could not confirm Mother's living situation. At times she had previously stayed with a boyfriend four nights a week and had been living with her sister. CASA Kelley stated that the Children both said they were happy in their placements and wanted to stay, and neither talked about Mother to CASA Kelley.
[¶21] FCM Kerr also testified termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Children's best interests. FCM Kerr stated this was because Mother had not consistently participated in services and had not been able to demonstrate "any level of sobriety" due to her missed drug screens. Id. at 178-79. Both of the Children had been diagnosed with PTSD, and FCM Kerr believed that inconsistency stemming from Mother's repeated hospitalizations would cause trauma to the Children if they were in Mother's care. FCM Kerr testified that Mother's issues with sobriety and associating with unsafe individuals, which were reasons for the Children's removal, were still concerns and had not been remedied.
[¶22] At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the trial court took the case under advisement. On September 20, 2023, the trial court issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law terminating Mother's parental rights. Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶23] While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise their children, the law allows for the termination of parental rights based on a parent's inability or unwillingness to meet parental responsibilities. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 145 (Ind. 2005); In re D.P., 994 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013). Thus, parental rights are subordinated to the child's interests in determining the appropriate disposition of a petition to terminate the parentchild relationship. In re. J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 283 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013). The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parent but to protect the child. In re D.P., 994 N.E.2d at 1231. Termination of parental rights is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. The trial court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that their physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id.
[¶24] As our Supreme Court has observed, "[d]ecisions to terminate parental rights are among the most difficult our trial courts are called upon to make. They are also among the most fact-sensitive-so we review them with great deference to the trial courts ...." E.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 4 N.E.3d 636, 640 (Ind. 2014). In evaluating the trial court's findings and conclusions accompanying an order terminating parental rights, we review only for clear error, and we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75, 81 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012). First, we must determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. "A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment." Id. If the evidence and reasonable inferences support the trial court's decision, we must affirm. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013), trans. denied.
[¶25] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, the State must allege and prove, among other things:
(B) that one (1) of the following is true:
(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied.
(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the wellbeing of the child.
(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a [CHINS];
(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). The State's burden of proof for establishing these allegations is one of clear and convincing evidence. In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 149 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009). Moreover, "if the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship." I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a) (emphasis added). Further, because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written such that, to properly effectuate the termination of parental rights, the trial court need only find one of the three requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) has been established by clear and convincing evidence, we need not address all of the requirements if we find that one has been proven. See I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B); A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1157 n.6.
[¶26] Mother does not challenge the trial court's findings of fact, so she has waived any arguments relating to the unchallenged findings, and we therefore accept all of the trial court's findings as true. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d 605, 610 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (noting this court accepts unchallenged trial court findings as true). Instead, Mother only argues that the trial court's conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the removal of the Children and the reasons for placement outside of the home would not be remedied was not supported by sufficient evidence. Mother specifically contends that despite the challenges she faced with her mental and physical health, she was able to remedy the reasons for the Children's removal because she had stable housing, participated in parenting time, had demonstrated some period of sobriety, was no longer residing with a sex offender, and had made progress in her relationship with the Children.
[¶27] In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to a child's removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied, a court engages in a two-step analysis. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). First, the court must determine what conditions led to the child's placement and retention in foster care, and second, the court must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. In the second step, the trial court must judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing a parent's recent improvements against "'habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.'" E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643 (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). Under this rule, "[trial] courts have properly considered evidence of a parent's prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and employment." In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011).
[¶28] In addition, DCS need not provide evidence ruling out all possibilities of change; rather, it must establish only that there is a reasonable probability that the parent's behavior will not change. In re Involuntary Termination of ParentChild Relationship of Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236, 242 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007). "We entrust th[e] delicate balance to the [trial] court, which has [the] discretion to weigh a parent's prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination." E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643. When determining whether the conditions resulting in removal would be remedied, the trial court may consider the parent's response to the offers of help from DCS or the service providers. D.B., 942 N.E.2d at 873.
[¶29] Here, the Children were removed from Mother's care on October 14, 2021, on an emergency basis due to allegations of abuse and neglect. Specifically, the home conditions were dirty, there was a registered sex offender living in the home with the Children, the Children went to school dirty, J.W.H. went to school without underwear, A.H. exhibited sexually maladaptive behaviors and was unable to control his emotions, and it was learned that the Children had been exposed to years of domestic violence inflicted on Mother by her partners. Further, the CHINS petition contained allegations that Mother had battered the Children, allowed sex offenders and known drug abusers to live in the home with the Children, failed to protect the Children from sexual and physical abuse, failed to ensure the Children's school attendance, and failed to ensure the Children obtain therapeutic care to address their maladaptive sexual behaviors and violent aggression. After their removal in October 2021, the Children were never returned to Mother's care during the length of the case.
[¶30] The evidence presented at the termination hearing revealed that, over the course of the case, Mother struggled to consistently participate in services, visit the Children, remain drug free, manage her health issues, and maintain stable and safe housing. At the time of the hearing, Mother had not demonstrated that she had remedied her improper use of her prescribed medications and illegal drugs. Despite being ordered to call in daily to see if she needed to submit to random drug screens, Mother failed to call over two hundred times and only provided ten random drug screens, testing positive for methamphetamine-amphetamine in April 2023 and failing to submit to any screens thereafter. Although Mother claimed at the termination hearing that she was drug free at that time, the trial court was free to disregard Mother's selfserving testimony, instead drawing an unfavorable inference from evidence that Mother declined to submit to any drug screen in many months prior to the hearing.
[¶31] Mother's drug use interfered with her ability to reunify with the Children and also aggravated her health issues. The evidence revealed that Mother suffered from unmanaged diabetes and kidney disease and had been hospitalized eight times in 2023 alone because she would not take her medications as prescribed and often became unconscious as a result. Such repeated hospitalizations would negatively affect her ability to parent the Children, and FCM Kerr testified that the hospitalizations would also traumatize the Children who both suffered from PTSD. The trial court was within its discretion to conclude that Mother's inability to take care of her own health indicated that it was unlikely Mother would be able to adequately tend to the Children and their behavioral and emotional issues.
[¶32] At the time of hearing, Mother's living situation remained unstable. Throughout the case, Mother lived in at least five different places. For a period of time, Mother and Maternal Grandmother lived together, without being on the lease, in a home that lacked electricity. This living situation prompted one of Mother's service providers to call adult protective services. Further, over the course of the case, Mother's living situations were not safe for her or the Children because Mother had a history of living with people who were registered sex offenders and drug users and who had been violent against her. Further, over the duration of the case, Mother would not keep DCS informed of where she was living and, on multiple occasions, would deny DCS access to where she was living, which prevented DCS from determining if the home was appropriate. Although Mother claimed she had stable housing at the time of the hearing because she was living with Maternal Grandmother, this did not affirmatively establish stable housing as many of Mother's previous inappropriate homes involved living with Maternal Grandmother.
[¶33] Additionally, the evidence presented at the hearing established that prior to DCS's intervention, Mother had not been able to protect the Children from witnessing domestic violence or from witnessing or being the victims of sexual abuse. Mother acknowledged such experiences of both she and the Children but did not see the need to participate in services or change her lifestyle. Both of the Children exhibited behavioral issues consistent with experiencing trauma and having witnessed and being victims of physical and sexual abuse. But Mother continued to live in homes with registered sex offenders throughout the case. Although Mother completed a substance abuse assessment, a parenting assessment, and a psychological evaluation, she did not follow through with the recommendations from such assessments. Her service providers tried to address issues related to domestic violence, but Mother made no progress, and the referrals were closed for lack of engagement. Therefore, she was either unable or unwilling to cooperate with DCS in remedying the trial court's concerns for the Children's safety and proper care.
[¶34] Further, the evidence demonstrated that Mother struggled to appropriately engage and communicate with the Children during her visitations. She would prioritize her wants over the Children's needs and would buy lottery scratch off tickets, vapes, and sodas and bring those to visits, without bringing appropriate food for the Children. During the visitations, Mother would make inappropriate and negative comments about DCS or the case to the Children. Mother was inconsistent in attending the visitations and usually brought Maternal Grandmother with her to the visitations, who would do most of the engaging and playing with the Children. Maternal Grandmother would often have to redirect Mother and help her engage with the Children during the visitations. Mother last saw A.H. in December 2022 and last had contact with J.W.H. through a virtual visit in January 2023. Mother's inability to effectively communicate with the Children and failure to prioritize visiting them demonstrated a lack of a strong parent-child bond and a lack of commitment to reuniting with the Children.
[¶35] While we are mindful of Mother's learning disability and health issues, DCS offered her accommodations, and she still failed to take advantage of the services provided to assist in reunification with the Children and never showed sustained progress toward remedying the conditions that resulted in the removal of the Children from her care. Over the course of the almost two-year duration of this case, Mother did not demonstrate that she could take care of herself, let alone the Children. A child "'cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.'" In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019) (quoting E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 648), cert. denied. Mother's arguments that she made progress in remedying the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal and continued placement outside her care are merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which we do not do. We, therefore, conclude that there was sufficient evidence supporting the trial court's determination that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions which resulted in the Children's removal and continued placement outside the home would not be remedied. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not err in its judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to the Children.
[¶36] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.