MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] T.S. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother is the biological mother of M.S. (“Child”), born in 2012, and E.F., born in 2018. Child and E.F. have different biological fathers. R.L. (“Father”) is Childs biological father.
[3] On July 15, 2018, E.F., around four months old, was in Mothers care when he died of acute methamphetamine ingestion. On July 19, Child was removed from Mother and placed in foster care. The Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging M.S. was a child in need of services (CHINS). Mother admitted Child was a CHINS. Fathers whereabouts were unknown. DCS served Father by publication, but he didnt respond or appear. The trial court “entered an order defaulting [Father] by publication.” Ex. p. 36 (cleaned up).
[4] In September 2018, the State charged Mother with several offenses in connection with E.F.’s death, including Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death. In September 2019, Mother pled guilty to Level 1 felony neglect and was sentenced to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction (DOC). According to the DOCs website, Mothers earliest possible release date is September 2034, when Child will be twenty-two years old.
[5] In January 2020, DCS petitioned to terminate Mothers and Fathers parental rights to Child. At first, DCS proceeded as to Father only because Mother had signed a consent for Child to be adopted by a specific foster family and an agreement giving her some post-adoption contact with Child. Father was again served by publication but didnt respond or appear, and his parental rights were terminated “by default” in May 2020. See id. at 40.
[6] The next month, June 2020, Childs “pre-adoptive family abruptly kicked [her] out of their home and decided not to adopt her,” nullifying Mothers agreement with the foster family. Appellants App. Vol. II p. 15. Child then had multiple placements. At Mothers request, Child was placed with another pre-adoptive family in March 2021. But when that “placement disrupted” in June 2021, DCS proceeded with terminating Mothers parental rights. Id. at 16.
[7] A fact-finding hearing was held in August 2021. At the time, Child was in a foster home (which hadnt ruled out adopting Child). However, Mothers first cousin in Kentucky was interested in adopting Child, and Child had visited him several times. Before the hearing, the parties stipulated on the record to many things, including the procedural history of the case starting with the CHINS petition; the circumstances of Mothers crime, conviction, and sentence; and the failed placements for Child. See Tr. pp. 5-7. Based on these stipulations, “the parties agree[d] that the only issue before the Court today is whether termination of Mothers parental rights is in the childs best interest.” Id. at 7, 26; Appellants App. Vol. II p. 16 (Finding 16).
[8] DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Laura Macon testified DCS had recently learned that Mothers cousin was interested in adopting Child. FCM Macon said if Mothers parental rights are terminated and “the ICPC is accepted in Kentucky,” the plan “would be to place [Child] there, and then proceed with the adoption process.” Tr. p. 20. Child, however, would have to stay in the home for six months before an adoption could be finalized.
[9] Jennifer Carroll, an adoption consultant with DCS, testified Child is “a hard-to-place child” because of her age, “multiple failed previous adoptive placements,” and “the behaviors that [Child] displayed that were the cause of those failed adoptive placements,” including trying “to light [a] dog on fire” and “safety” concerns with other children in the home. Id. at 9. Carroll testified that when a parents parental rights “are still intact,” there arent as many “recruitment options” for the child. Id. at 10. As Carroll explained:
If the child is legally free and both parents’ rights are terminated, that opens up more recruitment options in that we have families that are considered adopt-only, and they are not licensed foster parents, and they can only take children who are legally free. Children who are legally free, we can also recruit out of state, and look at families who live out of the State of Indiana, and we can only do that if they are legally free as well.
Id.
[10] Brittany Demaree, Childs Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), testified terminating Mothers parental rights is in Childs best interests because Mother, who had not seen Child since 2018 and whom Child had never asked about, will “be incarcerated for the remainder of [Childs] childhood, and into her early adulthood.” Id. at 13. CASA Demaree explained that Child had been in foster care for three years in five homes, two of which “were forever homes that had failed.” Id. CASA Demaree said Child “desperately wants her forever home” and if Mothers parental rights are terminated, “that will expand the horizon for more potential families for [Child].” Id. CASA Demaree acknowledged Mothers cousin was interested in adopting Child, but she said that would take some time and wasnt guaranteed, as other placements had fallen through, too.
[11] Finally, Mother testified she would sign an adoption consent (like she had done before) for her cousin to adopt Child. But she didnt want her parental rights to be involuntarily terminated because she wanted to sign an agreement that would give her some post-adoption contact with Child.
[12] The trial court issued an order terminating Mothers parental rights to Child. The court found termination is in the best interests of Child because Fathers parental rights had already been terminated and Mother will be in prison until Child is a young adult and therefore cannot raise her. Appellants App. Vol. II pp. 17 (Finding 20), 19 (Conclusion 33). The court added that terminating Mothers parental rights will “significantly increase [Childs] chances of being adopted.” Id. at 17 (Finding 24); see also id. at 19-20 (Conclusions 34-36).
[13] Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[14] Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to Child. When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). Rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment of the trial court. Id. When a trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the trial courts findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. To determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is clearly erroneous, we review whether the evidence supports the trial courts findings and whether the findings support the judgment. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1143 (Ind. 2016).
[15] A petition to terminate parental rights must allege, 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 childs 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 well-being of the child.
(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a child in need of services;
(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). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231. If the court finds the allegations in a petition are true, it “shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a).
[16] At the fact-finding hearing, Mother and DCS stipulated that the only issue before the trial court was whether termination is in Childs best interests.
1
We therefore address only this conclusion. Deciding whether termination is in a childs best interests is “[p]erhaps the most difficult determination” a trial court must make. In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019) (quotation omitted). The court must look at the totality of the evidence and subordinate the parents interests to those of the child. Id. Central among these interests is the childs need for permanency, as the child cannot wait “indefinitely.” Id.
[17] Mother first argues the fact she is incarcerated, by itself, doesnt mean termination is in Childs best interests. See Appellants Br. p. 9 (citing K.E. v. Ind. Dept of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015)). While this is true, the trial court didnt rely solely on the fact that Mother is incarcerated. Rather, the court relied on the fact that Fathers parental rights had already been terminated, Mother will be in prison until 2034 (when Child will be twenty-two years old), and there is no one to raise Child.
[18] Mother next argues termination is not in Childs best interests because she “has maintained her willingness to consent to an adoption ․ as long as she can maintain contact with the childs adoptive family.” Appellants Br. p. 13. In other words, Mother wanted DCS to postpone termination to see if things worked out with her cousin in Kentucky. But termination of Mothers parental rights had already been delayed for eighteen months for this very reason. When DCS petitioned to terminate Mothers and Fathers parental rights in January 2020, it proceeded as to Father only because Mother had consented to Child being adopted by a specific family that would allow her some post-adoption contact with Child. When that adoption didnt work out, Mother eventually found another pre-adoptive placement, which fell through in June 2021. The termination hearing was then held in August. The court didnt have to wait any longer. This is especially so given Child is “a hard-to-place child” because of her age, failed placements, and behaviors exhibited during those placements. As the adoption consultant and CASA testified, terminating Mothers parental rights would open up more recruitment options for Child, which is in her best interests. The trial court did not err when it concluded termination is in Childs best interests.
[19] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Mother argues the trial courts legal conclusions that there is a reasonable probability the conditions resulting in Childs removal will not be remedied and that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Childs well-being are not “sufficiently supported by and related to the factual findings.” Appellants Br. p. 14. But as the State responds, the trial court did not do so because of the parties’ stipulation that the only issue to be determined was best interests. Mother did not file a reply brief challenging this stipulation.
Vaidik, Judge.
Crone, J., and Altice, J., concur.