BARNES, Judge.
S.B. ("Father") appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with his daughter, M.G. We affirm.
The sole issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of Father's parental rights.
Father and A.G. ("Mother") are the parents of M.G., who was born March 2, 2012. On March 6, 2012, a child in need of services ("CHINS") petition was filed alleging that Mother's mental state hindered her ability to appropriately parent and that she had not successfully completed services in a prior unrelated CHINS case. Mother and Father were unable to provide M.G. with a safe and appropriate living environment while Mother was receiving inpatient care at a hospital and Father was struggling with substance abuse and domestic violence propensities. The Department of Child Services ("DCS") removed M.G. from the hospital and placed her with her maternal great-aunt ("Aunt") and great-uncle ("Uncle") to ensure M.G.'s safety. On the same day, the trial court held an initial detention hearing and DCS was ordered to continue M.G.'s placement in Aunt and Uncle's care. On March 7, 2012, Mother admitted that M.G. was a CHINS.
On August 13, 2012, the trial court found that M.G. was a CHINS with respect to Father. The trial court ordered Father to engage in home-based therapy services and case management. Father only attended nine sessions during a seven-month period and did not make progress. Father's therapist recommended a psychological evaluation due to Father's decision making. Father did not undergo the evaluation and appeared resistant to services. DCS had concerns about the effects of the amount of hostility and frustration within Father's parents' home, where Father was living, and the trial court found that the environment was toxic. As a result, Father was told that he should relocate and find his own residence.
On December 17, 2012, during a periodic review hearing, the trial court found that home-based therapy, case management, and visitation were stopped because of non-compliance and no-shows as Father was not interested in setting up a visitation schedule. During a permanency hearing on March 25, 2013, Father did not appear because he was incarcerated, and the trial court found that Father had been in and out of jail and had not completed services even though he had the opportunity to do so. The trial court stated, "[t]his child is in a pre-adoptive home, with a sibling and neither parent has demonstrated an ability or a willingness to properly parent this child." Ex. 32. p. 97. M.G.'s permanency plan was then changed from reunification to adoption.
On April 8, 2013, DCS filed its termination petition. After a hearing, on November 14, 2013, the trial court issued an order terminating Father's parent-child relationship with M.G.
App. pp. 17-18. The trial court concluded in part, "Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of [M.G.]. Termination would allow for her to be adopted into a stable and permanent home with her sister, and have her needs safely met."
"When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility."
A petition to terminate a parent-child relationship must allege:
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS has the burden of proving these allegations by clear and convincing evidence.
On appeal, Father does not challenge the trial court's findings supporting its conclusion that the parent-child relationship poses a threat to M.G.'s ability to obtain permanency, but rather he argues that he did not pose a danger to M.G.'s well-being and it was not in M.G.'s best interests to terminate his parental rights. "In determining whether the continuation of a parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children, a trial court should consider a parent's habitual pattern of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation."
Here, there is a substantial amount of evidence showing that Father did not put forth much effort to make himself a suitable parent to M.G. The trial court concluded that his parents' home created a somewhat hostile environment, yet Father made no attempts to move. He was convicted of three felonies, and one misdemeanor while the CHINS case was pending, and failed to complete any of his parenting or drug classes. Father also did not participate in court ordered home-based reunification services that would have assisted him in creating an acceptable environment for M.G. Father has never held stable employment, does not have stable housing, and has not shown an interest in consistently visiting M.G. even after multiple visitation referrals. M.G. has never lived with Father and last saw him when she was six months old in September of 2012. The trial court's findings regarding threat to M.G. is not clearly erroneous.
In determining whether termination is in the best interests of a child, courts may look beyond the factors identified by the DCS and look to the totality of the evidence.
Aunt and Uncle wish to adopt M.G. They have had M.G. since birth, have bonded with M.G., have been deemed appropriate foster parents, and have created an environment that M.G. has thrived in. They additionally provide an opportunity for M.G. to grow up with her sister. There is sufficient evidence that it is in the best interests of M.G. for Father's parent-child relationship to be terminated, so as to allow permanency of M.G. with Aunt and Uncle and avoid potential harm to her emotional or physical well-being.
There is sufficient evidence to support the termination of Father's parental rights to M.G. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and CRONE, J., concur.