time of the termination hearing in Indiana

2020Moreover, “the trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2545 | March 31, 2020 Page 7 of 15 care for his children at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.

2020Moreover, “the trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to care for his [or her] children at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.

2016Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8 (a). [13] “In determining whether the conditions that led to a child’s removal will not be remedied,” the juvenile court “must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her child at the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “[I]t is not just the basis for the initial removal of the child that may be Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 10 of 13 considered for purposes of determining whether a parent’s rights shoul

2016A. Remedy of Conditions [11] “In determining whether the conditions that led to a child’s removal will not be remedied,” the juvenile court “must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her child at the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “[I]t is not just the basis for the initial removal of the child that may be considered for purposes of determining whether a parent’s rights should be terminated, but also those bases resulting in the continued placement outside of the home.” In re A.I

2018See In re D.D. , 804 N.E.2d 258 , 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (noting that the juvenile court must judge a parent's *633 fitness to care for his child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions).

2018See In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 , 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (noting that the juvenile court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions).

2018In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

2018In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

2020When the trial court makes its determination, it must evaluate a parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, 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 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2004 | March 10, 2020 Page 13 of 19 or deprivation.” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014) (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231 ).

2020Subsection (B) [16] Under subsection (B)(i), the court found a reasonable probability that Father would not remedy the conditions that resulted in the Children’s placement outside the home, noting that—inter alia—Father failed to avoid incarceration.5 When a court makes a finding under subsection (B)(i), the court must evaluate “the parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, ‘taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.’” K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641, 647 (Ind. 2015) (quoting In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014)).

2020In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. [17] By the time of the termination hearing, the Children had been removed from parental care for more than four years, they had not seen Father in four years, and had not seen Mother in almost three years.

2019Id. at 1158-59 . [12] Mother was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing and argues that “a parent’s incarceration, alone, is an insufficient basis for termination of a parent’s relationship with his or her child.” Appellant’s Br. p. 15.

2020In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

2020In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

2020Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [26] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Mother has historically been unable to provide stability and supervision for her children and was unable to provide the same at the time of the termination hearing.

2019Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [17] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Mother has historically been unable to provide housing, stability, and supervision for S.M. and was unable to provide the same at the time of the termination hearing.

2020See Lang, 861 N.E.2d at 373 (affirming termination of father’s parental rights to his children based on father’s lack of cooperation in services ordered to address his unreasonable corporal punishment of children). [25] Father argues DCS did not present evidence regarding his ability to parent at the time of the termination hearing, however, there are a plethora of findings that illustrate the Father’s pattern of behavior and unwillingness to properly parent Children or engage in services to assist him in doing so.

2018OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. [16] When assessing a parent’s fitness to care for a child, the trial court should view the parents as of the time of the termination hearing and take into account the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1710-JT-2323 | January 31, 2018 Page 7 of 12 changes that have occurred during the proceedings.

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Remedied Conditions [11] As to subsection (b)(2)(B), when considering the likelihood that conditions resulting in the Child’s removal will not be remedied, the trial court must evaluate “the parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, ‘taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.’” In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641, 647 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 152 ).

2020Subsection (B) [16] Under subsection (B)(i), the court found a reasonable probability that Father would not remedy the conditions that resulted in the Children’s placement outside the home, noting that—inter alia—Father failed to avoid incarceration.5 When a court makes a finding under subsection (B)(i), the court must evaluate “the parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, ‘taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.’” K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641, 647 (Ind. 2015) (quoting In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014)).

2023Div. of Children & Family Servs., 656 N.E.2d 824, 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied.

2020Div. of Children & Family Servs., 656 N.E.2d 824, 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied.

2020When the trial court makes its determination, it must evaluate a parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, 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 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2004 | March 10, 2020 Page 13 of 19 or deprivation.” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014) (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231 ).

2020To the extent that Mother highlights her participation in an inpatient drug treatment program at the time of the termination hearing, the trial court was well within its discretion to “disregard the efforts Mother made only shortly before termination and to weigh more heavily Mother's history of conduct prior to those efforts.” In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1234 .

2017In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208 . [11] Mother challenges the court’s conclusions the conditions under which Children were removed would not be remedied, the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a risk to Children, and termination was in the best interests of Children. 2 Reasonable Probability Conditions Would Not Be Remedied [12] The trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her children at the time of the termination hearing.

2017In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208 . [14] Mother challenges the court’s conclusions the conditions under which Children were removed would not be remedied, the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a risk to Children, and termination was in the best interests of Children. 2 Reasonable Probability Conditions Would Not Be Remedied [15] The trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her children at the time of the termination hearing.

1999In Matter of A.M. we discussed our statement in Page v. Greene County Dept. of Welfare, that ‘'[although a trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to care for a child as of the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration any evidence of changed conditions, 'the court must also evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation of the children.’ ” Matter of A.M., 596 N.E.2d at 239 . (quoting Page v. Greene County Dept. of Welfare, 564 N.E.2d 956, 960 (Ind.Ct.App.1991)) (quoting Matter of

1992In Page, we stated: Although a trial court should judge a parent's fitness to care for a child as of the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration any evidence of changed conditions, "the court must also evaluate the parent's habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation of the children." 564 N.E.2d at 960 (quoting Matter of J.K.C. (1984), Ind. App., 470 N.E.2d 88, 92 ).

2017It is true that in In re S.P.H. we said, as we have said in countless other cases, that “[t]o determine whether conditions are likely to be remedied, the trial court must examine [the parent’s] fitness to care for the children as of the time of the termination hearing and take into account any evidence of changed conditions.” 806 N.E.2d at 881 .

2012To determine whether the conditions are likely to be remedied, the trial court must examine the parent’s fitness to care for the child “as of the time of the termination hearing and take into account any evidence of changed conditions.” In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2014Id. at 11 (citing In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146 , 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)).

2013Reasonable Probability of Remedying Conditions In finding a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in a child’s removal will not be remedied, a trial court is required to evaluate “a parent’s fitness to care for her child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146 , 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

2016See In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195 , 202 n. 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

2012As for Father’s plans to have his aunt care for the Children, we note that “the trial court is to assess the parent’s fitness to care for the children as of the time of the termination hearing” and thus Father’s “future plans were not evidence on which the trial court could base its opinion.” In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d at 202 n.1.

2019Also, as we have recognized, "Even assuming that [the parent] will eventually develop into a suitable parent, we must ask how much longer [the child] should have to wait to enjoy the permanency that is essential to her development and overall well-being." Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 , 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. [32] At the time of the termination hearing, DCS had been working with Mother for over one and a half years, and Mother had hardly complied with any of the services provided by DCS.

2015Conditions Resulting in Child’s Removal Unlikely to Be Remedied [26] In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions which necessitated a child’s removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied, the trial court must assess the parent’s fitness to care for his or her child “at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

2019See id. (“trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to care for her child as of the time of the termination proceedings, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions”). [29] DCS presented ample evidence to establish that Father engaged in destructive and dangerous behavior due to his drug abuse and criminal propensity, that the behavior was ongoing without any serious sign of improvement, and that the behavior posed a threat to Child.

2016In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). [32] Further, at the time of the termination hearing, Child had been living with Grandparents since removal and for most of her life.

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Remedied Conditions [11] As to subsection (b)(2)(B), when considering the likelihood that conditions resulting in the Child’s removal will not be remedied, the trial court must evaluate “the parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, ‘taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.’” In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641, 647 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 152 ).

2018Interestingly, Mother also claims that she could not be a threat to the Child’s well-being by virtue of the fact that “she was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing, which eliminated any concern regarding Mother’s neglect toward the Child.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 33). [25] Clear and convincing evidence need not show that “‘the continued custody of the parents is wholly inadequate for the child’s very survival.’ Rather, it is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that ‘the child’s emotional and physical development are threatened’ by the respondent parent’s custody.” Be

2018In re D.J., 755 N.E.2d 679 , 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. [10] Here, the juvenile court found Child was initially removed from Mother “on allegations that [Mother] tested positive for heroin and marijuana, that the home was in deployable [sic] condition, and that [Child] was being medically neglected over [Child’s] special needs. [Mother] had also recently been arrested for shoplifting.” Appellant’s App., Vol. II at 13.2 The conditions that led to Child’s removal indicate instability and Mother’s inability to care for Child. [11] Mother argues that the evidence at the fact-finding

2012In re D.J., 755 N.E.2d 679 , 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

1999In Matter of A.M. we discussed our statement in Page v. Greene County Dept. of Welfare, that ‘'[although a trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to care for a child as of the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration any evidence of changed conditions, 'the court must also evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation of the children.’ ” Matter of A.M., 596 N.E.2d at 239 . (quoting Page v. Greene County Dept. of Welfare, 564 N.E.2d 956, 960 (Ind.Ct.App.1991)) (quoting Matter of

1994Mother and Father rely on Page v. Greene County Dept. of Welfare (1991), Ind. App., 564 N.E.2d 956 , to support their position that "a trial court should judge a parent's fitness to care for a child as of the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration any evidence of changed conditions ..." Id. at 960 .

2019See J.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 906 N.E. 2d 226, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). [14] Father correctly observes that the crucial time to judge a parent’s fitness to care for his child is the time of the termination hearing.

2017In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 , 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). [20] Here, despite having had three years to better his situation, at the time of the termination hearing, Father did not have full-time employment, suitable Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 12 of 14 housing, or the ability to transport Child to her appointments.