Termination: Z U v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 1 of 14
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take
any action in reliance upon this memorandum decision until it is certified.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value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.
I N 	T H E
Court of Appeals of Indiana
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child
Relationship of E.U., G.U., Ka.U., Ke.U., M.U., Ma.U., and
S.U. (Minor Children);
Z.U. (Mother),
Appellant-Respondent
v.
Indiana Department of Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
October 20, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-JT-1343
Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court
The Honorable Darrin M. Dolehanty, Senior Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 2 of 14
Trial Court Cause Nos.
89D03-2601-JT-1
89D03-2601-JT-2
89D03-2601-JT-3
89D03-2601-JT-4
89D03-2601-JT-5
89D03-2601-JT-6
89D03-2601-JT-7
Memorandum Decision by Chief Judge Tavitas
Judges May and Vaidik concur.
Tavitas, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] 	Z.U. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to
her seven children. We affirm.
Issue
[2] 	Mother raises one issue, which we restate as whether Mother’s due process
rights were violated by the failure to provide therapeutic parenting education
services.
Facts
[3] 	Mother and C.U. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) had seven children. In
January 2022, the five oldest children—G.U., born in October 2014; S.U., born
in July 2015; M.U., born in May 2016; Ka.U., born in April 2020; and Ma.U.,
born in July 2021—were removed from Parents’ care. The Department of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 3 of 14
Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging that the children were children
in need of services (“CHINS”). At that time, Parents’ trailer had no heat,
working utilities, or food. DCS observed that the furniture was inappropriate
for the children, and unsecured firearms were on a mattress and were accessible
to the children. The floors had several holes and soft spots. Although the
outside temperature was nineteen degrees, some of the children were not
wearing shoes, and Ma.U. was dressed in a onesie. The children were dirty;
Ka.U. had fluid dripping from his ear; G.U., M.U., and S.U. did not
communicate well and had developmental delays; and Ma.U. was very stiff and
unable to hold herself up. Although S.U. is hearing impaired, Parents did not
know where her hearing aids were located, and they did not provide them to
DCS until several weeks later. Parents denied DCS follow-up visits to their
residence after the children were removed.
[4] 	After a fact-finding hearing, the trial court found the children to be CHINS on
May 12, 2022. The trial court found, in part, that Mother had a history of
mental health issues; the children had significant medical and educational needs
that were not being met; and the school-aged children had significant
unexcused absences. The trial court found that, when they did attend school,
the children were unkempt, dirty, wore dirty clothing that did not fit properly,
and lacked clothing appropriate for the weather. Each of the children required
services for behavioral and medical issues. When S.U. attended an
appointment to obtain new hearing aids, a foreign object was discovered in her

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 4 of 14
ear, which required surgery to remove. Parents did not attend the surgery
despite notice.
[5] 	The trial court ordered Mother, in part, to complete a parenting assessment and
successfully complete all recommendations; participate in case management
services and follow all recommendations; attend visitations with the children;
meet her own medical and mental health needs, including taking appropriate
medications; and complete a psychological assessment and follow all treatment
recommendations.1
[6] 	E.U. was born on November 3, 2022, and initially required feeding through a
tube. Mother did not seek prenatal care until August 2022; Mother had been
diagnosed with major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and
PTSD; and Mother was not participating in court-ordered individual therapy.
Additionally, Mother was not taking her mental health medication or insulin.
[7] 	On November 8, 2022, DCS filed a petition alleging that E.U. was also a
CHINS. In removing E.U. from Parents’ care, the trial court noted that Parents
had been “the subjects of forty (40) reports to the DCS Central Intake Unit,
which resulted in twenty-four (24) assessments.”2 Ex. Vol. I p. 110. On
November 30, 2022, the trial court adjudicated E.U. a CHINS following
1 Parents appealed the CHINS determination, and this Court affirmed. See In re K.U., No. 22A-JC-1502 (Ind.
Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2022) (mem.).
2 The family was previously involved in an informal adjustment in 2019-2020, and a CHINS petition was
filed in 2020, which was later converted to an informal adjustment. The informal adjustment was discharged
in March 2021.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 5 of 14
Parents’ admissions. In the dispositional order, the trial court ordered Mother,
in part, to complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations;
complete a medical evaluation and participate in recommended medication
management; attend all scheduled medical and mental health appointments;
attend visitations with the children; and participate in case management
services.
[8] 	Between the children’s removal in January 2022 through May 2023, Parents
failed to comply with the dispositional orders. In the summer of 2023,
however, Parents began to comply with the recommended services. In August
2023, G.U., S.U., and M.U. were returned to Parents’ care for trial home visits.
In November 2023, Ka.U. and Ma.U. were also returned to Parents’ care on
trial home visits. The trial home visits, however, did not go well.
[9] 	The teachers of the school-aged children noted that the children never
completed their homework and came to school disheveled, dirty, and hungry.
Mother rarely attended the school case conferences but, when she did attend,
she was rude, disrespectful, and defensive. S.U.’s medical needs were not being
met by Parents. S.U. rarely came to school with her hearing aids or glasses,
and Mother blamed S.U. for the missing items. The teachers often provided the
children with appropriate clothing, helped the children with their hair, and
addressed hygiene issues.
[10] 	The trial home visits ended unsuccessfully on February 12, 2024. The trial
court found that “[e]ducational neglect, medical neglect, and failure to provide

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 6 of 14
clothing” persisted while in Parents’ care. Ex. Vol. I p. 247. The trial court
found that Parents’ inability to provide care and supervision of the children
seriously impaired or endangered the children.
[11] 	Following the failed trial home visits, DCS put the following services in place
for Parents: individual therapy, case management, a visitation supervisor,
parenting education, a parenting assessment, and a psychological evaluation.
Mother completed a psychological evaluation with Dr. Daniel Westmoreland.
The evaluation revealed that: (1) Mother has “borderline intellectual ability”
with an IQ of 75; (2) Mother “will have difficulty understanding concepts of
anything beyond a fifth-grade level”; (3) neuropsychological testing
demonstrated that Mother has memory issues; and (4) Mother’s “lack of insight
could impact [her] ability to parent.”3 Ex. Vol. II p. 110. Dr. Westmoreland
recommended that Mother see a neurologist to address her seizures and
memory issues.
[12] 	“[T]herapeutic parenting education, in addition to the supervised visitation”
was also recommended.4 Tr. Vol. III p. 21. During her testimony, Family Case
Manager (“FCM”) Whitney Vickers, however, agreed that “[t]here’s no such
thing” as a “therapeutic parenting education” provider. Id. at 23. DCS,
3 The report was not admitted into evidence during the termination of parental rights proceedings. Findings
regarding the report were entered in the order finding that Ke.U. was a CHINS. See Ex. Vol. II pp. 108-12.
4 FCM Vickers testified that therapeutic parenting education was recommended by the parenting assessment.
Tr. Vol. III p. 21. She also testified that a therapeutic visitation provider was recommended by Dr.
Westmoreland. Id. at 23.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 7 of 14
instead, offered the services of a parenting education provider and a therapeutic
visitation provider.
[13] 	Parents separated in August 2024, and Parents’ seventh child, Ke.U., was born
in September 2024. Ke.U. also had significant medical needs, was monitored
for seizure-like activity, spent a few weeks in the NICU, and required a feeding
tube. DCS filed a petition alleging that Ke.U. was a CHINS. After a fact-
finding hearing, the trial court granted DCS’s petition on February 13, 2025.
The trial court entered a dispositional order similar to the dispositional orders
for the other children.
[14] 	In general, during visits with the children, Parents often “bicker[ed]” with each
other. Tr. Vol. II p. 135. In March 2025, visits with the children were
“paused” because the “visits became destructive.” Id. at 48, 133. Parents had
gotten into an argument with the visit supervisor. Although Parents were
expected to provide supplies for the visits, such as diapers, Parents argued that
the foster parents should provide the items. The older children intervened and
made comments supporting the foster parents. The argument “escalated” and
“got loud,” and the children “were very upset” about the incident. Id. at 134.
G.U. and M.U. refused to attend further visits with Mother and “wanted
nothing to do with [Mother].” Id. at 48. Mother attended visits with the other
children consistently through August 2025, but then she stopped visiting the
children altogether.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 8 of 14
[15] 	DCS tried to find “therapeutic parenting time” for Mother through five different
service providers, but each declined to provide the service. Ex. Vol. II p. 182.
Although Firefly agreed to provide enhanced supervised parenting time,
Mother refused to participate.
[16] 	Throughout the proceedings, there were concerns about Mother’s self-harm by
cutting herself and suicidal ideation. Mother stopped attending her therapy
sessions in June 2025. When she stopped visiting the children, Mother claimed
to be having health issues, but she never provided DCS with verification of
those health issues. DCS offered transportation to accommodate her alleged
medical issues, but Mother refused transportation. DCS also offered virtual
visits, but Mother did not participate.
[17] 	Eventually, Mother stopped participating in services, declined to meet with
DCS employees, and refused to provide a current address. In February 2026,
DCS located Mother, who was living in a two-bedroom senior citizen
apartment with two roommates, which was not appropriate for the children.
[18] 	DCS filed petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights to the children on
January 7, 2026. Father consented to the children being adopted by their foster
parents. The trial court held fact-finding hearings on April 7 and 14, 2026.
Mother did not appear for the April 7 hearing, but she did appear for the April
14 hearing.
[19] 	The court appointed special advocate (“CASA”) testified that Mother struggled
to “take care of her own physical and mental health needs” and was unable to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 9 of 14
apply what she learned during parenting services. Tr. Vol. II p. 216. According
to the CASA, the children have special needs that are being addressed by foster
parents, and Mother is not able to meet the children’s needs.
[20] 	The children have numerous medical issues and have three to five medical
appointments each week plus one to three monthly appointments. G.U. was
diagnosed with PTSD and depression. S.U. has the genetic marker for
TAOK1, a rare neurodevelopmental genetic disorder that can lead to
developmental delays and autism, and LMNA, a rare genetic disorder that
results in a form of lipodystrophy5, which can cause problems with the way a
body stores fat. S.U. also has a hearing impairment and was diagnosed with
ADHD. She receives educational services, speech therapy, occupational
therapy, and regular medical appointments with specialists regarding her
hearing aids. M.U. takes medication for ADHD and a mood stabilizer and
receives individual therapy and speech therapy. Ka.U. also has the TAOK1
genetic marker; has been diagnosed with autism and ADHD; is taking
medication for his ADHD; and receives speech therapy. Ma.U. also has the
TAOK1 genetic marker; has been diagnosed with autism; is scheduled to begin
ABA therapy6; and receives speech and occupational therapy. E.U. has the
genetic markers for TAOK1 and LMNA; has asthma and autism; and receives
5 Lipodystrophy is “a condition that’s characterized by a complete or partial loss of and/or abnormal
distribution of adipose (fat) tissue in certain areas of your body.” https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/
diseases/23441-lipodystrophy [https://perma.cc/AQE9-PQSY] (last visited Oct. 6, 2026).
6 ABA therapy is applied behavior analysis therapy, which is a therapy for individuals with autism.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 10 of 14
occupational therapy. The foster parents are trying to obtain ABA therapy for
E.U. as well. Ke.U. initially had a feeding tube and received occupational and
physical therapy. Ke.U., however, has graduated from those services and is
meeting his milestones.
[21] 	On April 21, 2026, the trial court granted DCS’s petition to terminate Mother’s
parental rights to the children. Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[22] 	On appeal, Mother only argues that her due process rights were violated by
DCS’s failure to provide therapeutic parenting education services. Mother does
not challenge the trial court’s specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon
terminating her parental rights to the children. Accordingly, we address only
Mother’s due process argument.
[23] 	Although Mother argues the alleged lack of therapeutic parenting education
services violated her due process rights, she did not raise this issue in the trial
court. “[A] parent may not sit idly by without asserting a need or desire for
services and then successfully argue that he was denied services to assist him
with his parenting.” In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). A
“party on appeal may waive a constitutional claim, including a claimed
violation of due process rights, by raising it for the first time on appeal.” In re
N.G., 51 N.E.3d 1167, 1173 (Ind. 2016). We, therefore, conclude that Mother
waived her due process argument.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 11 of 14
[24] 	Waiver notwithstanding, Mother’s argument fails. Our Supreme Court has
held that, “[w]hen the State seeks to terminate the parent-child relationship, it
must do so in a manner that meets the requirements of due process.” In re C.G.,
954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011). The process due in a termination of parental
rights proceeding turns on the balancing of three factors discussed in Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976): “(1) the private interests affected by the
proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3)
the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged
procedure.” C.G., 954 N.E.2d at 917. “In balancing the three-prong Mathews
test, [our Supreme Court noted] that the private interest affected by the
proceeding is substantial—a parent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of
her child.” Id. The Court also noted “the countervailing Mathews factor, that
the State’s parens patriae interest in protecting the welfare of a child is also
substantial.” Id. “Both the State and the parent have substantial interests
affected by the proceeding.” Id. at 917-18. Accordingly, the outcome depends
on the remaining Mathews factor—“the risk of error created by DCS’s actions
and the trial court’s actions.” Id. at 918.
[25] 	To protect a parent’s due process rights in the context of termination
proceedings, “DCS must have made reasonable efforts to preserve and/or
reunify the family unit in the CHINS case[.]” In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d 607, 615
(Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. “What constitutes ‘reasonable efforts’ will
vary by case, and . . . it does not necessarily always mean that services must be
provided to the parents.” Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 12 of 14
[26] 	Here, FCM Vickers testified that, after the failed trial home visit, “therapeutic
parenting education, in addition to the supervised visitation” was
recommended. Tr. Vol. III p. 21. She further testified, however, that “[t]here’s
no such thing” as a therapeutic parenting education provider. Id. at 23. DCS,
instead, offered the services of a parenting education provider and a therapeutic
visitation provider.
[27] 	Mother argues that the absence of the intervention “actively caused the
breakdown that DCS then relied on to prove termination was warranted.”
Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 6. But this conclusion is simply not supported by the
evidence. First, it is unclear from the record provided to us that “therapeutic
parenting education” is a service that DCS can provide. The record does not
indicate the specific benefit such services would provide or that a therapeutic
parenting educator was, in fact, available to provide this service to Mother.7
[28] 	Moreover, despite the services DCS provided, Mother’s parenting skills did not
improve. Although all of the children have medical and developmental needs,
Mother rarely attended their appointments. Trial home visits ended
unsuccessfully after Mother was completely unable to meet the children’s
educational and medical needs. Mother admitted to self-harming and suicidal
thoughts, and the psychological evaluation performed after the failed trial home
visits revealed significant problems that impact Mother’s ability to parent the
7 Relying on materials outside the record, DCS states that therapeutic parenting education teaches caregivers
how to “help children heal from past trauma and build secure attachments.” Appellee’s Br. p. 15 n.1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 13 of 14
children. Mother eventually stopped visiting the children or participating in
services altogether. These issues, which are unrelated to the absence of a
therapeutic parenting educator, demonstrate that the service gap did not cause
the termination of Mother’s parental rights.
[29] 	Mother was provided with extensive services over a three-year period. Her
participation was inconsistent, and she was unable to rectify the conditions that
led to the children’s removal. Under these circumstances, the risk of error
caused by DCS’s failure to provide one specific service—the therapeutic
parenting education service—is minimal. Mother’s due process rights were not
violated.
Conclusion
[30] 	Mother’s due process rights were not violated by DCS’s failure to provide
therapeutic parenting education services. Accordingly, we affirm.
[31] 	Affirmed.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Cara Schaefer Wieneke
Wieneke Law Office, LLC
Brooklyn, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JT-1343 | October 20, 2026 	Page 14 of 14
Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana