IN RE: E.W. (Minor Child) (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Pursuant to an agreed entry, the trial court determined that E.W. (the “Child”) was a child in need of services (“CHINS”) and entered a disposition order requiring the Child and S.R. (“Mother”) to participate in services. The services ordered require family functional therapy, which includes individual therapy for Mother and for the Child. Mother appeals the dispositional decree, raising one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Mother to participate in family functional therapy.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] E.W., born March 24, 2008, is the child of Mother and Father.¹ On August 19, 2023, the Child was living with Mother. Mother and the Child, then a high school sophomore, had an argument that resulted in Mother calling law enforcement. Law enforcement reported that Mother was “no longer wanting” the Child. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 28. The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report alleging the Child to be a victim of neglect, and the Child was removed from Mother's home and placed in kinship care.

[4] On August 22, 2023, DCS filed a petition alleging the Child to be a CHINS due to neglect of the Child's mental health by Mother as well as lack of supervision and abandonment under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. Specifically, the petition alleged that: (1) Mother and the Child had argued, (2) Mother called the police on the Child, (3) Mother's then boyfriend ² threatened to kill the Child after the police left, (4) Mother “indicated she does not want” the Child, and (5) the Child is not being medicated for any of the “multiple” mental health issues with which he has been diagnosed. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 22.

[5] At the initial hearing, Mother denied all allegations in the CHINS petition; however, she later filed a request for a CHINS determination under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6 (section 6 includes when a “child substantially endangers the child's own health”), to which DCS objected. Ultimately, DCS and Mother filed an agreed entry (the “Agreed Entry”) under which Mother admitted the Child was a “child in need of services pursuant to Indiana Law, as defined in IC 31-34-1 because [Mother] needs assistance meeting [the Child's] mental health and behavioral needs thus the coercive intervention of the court is required.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 83. The trial court entered an order adjudicating the Child to be a CHINS on the ground asserted in the Agreed Entry.

[6] By agreement of the parties, the trial court held a “summary” dispositional hearing. Tr. Vol. II at 18. In its Dispositional Decree, among other evidence, the trial court considered the predispositional report (the “Report”) as evidence. See Appellant's App. Vol. II at 16–17 (Dispositional Decree § III.A.1.). Regarding the reasons for DCS involvement, the Report provides in relevant part:

[Mother] stated she is the victim and she does not care that [her boyfriend] stated he was going to kill [the Child] when the police left the home. [Mother] was observed to be defending [her boyfriend] and was not concerned about the safety of her child. [Mother] stated she is leaving the home and she does not care about the charge of Neglect. [The Child] stated [Mother's boyfriend] stated he was going to kill him when the police leave.

Appellant's App. Vol. II at 89. Based on the stated goal of reunification, DCS requested in part that the trial court order Mother to participate in and follow the recommendations made in family therapy and parenting education. DCS argued that

if there is an issue between two people, the mother and the son, we can't just have one person doing the therapy and getting all the help and one person doing nothing and just expecting anything to change. So we would ask that family functioning [sic] therapy would be very important to focus on the family dynamics of this case ․

Tr. Vol. II at 20. According to the Family Case Manager, family functional therapy also involves individual therapy for each participant before family therapy could begin. Mother objected to any order for her to participate in family functional therapy, including any required individual therapy for her as a part of that, and to parenting education.

[7] In entering the Dispositional Decree, the trial court found a “rational basis to order Mother to participate in family functional therapy” but did not find a rational basis to order parenting education. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 16. The trial court ordered that “[p]articipation by Mother ․ in the plan of care for the child(ren) is necessary (See separate Parental Participation Order).” Id. at 18. The separate parental participation order (the “Participation Order”) includes the following regarding services for Mother: “[Mother] will become engaged in a family functional therapy program referred by the Family Case Manager and follow all recommendations.” Id. at 20. Mother now appeals the Participation Order portion of the Dispositional Decree.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[8] A trial court has “broad discretion in determining what programs and services in which a parent is required to participate” following a CHINS determination, but “the requirements must relate to some behavior or circumstances that was [sic] revealed by the evidence.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1258 (Ind. 2012) (citing A.C. v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 905 N.E.2d 456, 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)). Thus, we review a trial court's order of services and conditions in a CHINS case for an abuse of discretion. See K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's action is “against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences drawn therefrom.” A.C. v. State, 144 N.E.3d 810, 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)).

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Requiring Mother to Participate in Family Functional Therapy

[9] Mother argues that the trial court “did not find a rational basis” to order her to participate in family functional therapy in the Dispositional Decree. Appellant's Br. at 13. She also argues that she has a Fourteenth Amendment “right to raise one's own children without undue interference from the State.” Id. at 13. We address each contention in turn.

[10] Mother first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Parental Participation Order part of the Dispositional Decree. We initially observe that the reason for DCS's involvement is troubling. The Child was removed from Mother's home based on allegations that she and the Child had engaged in an altercation for which Mother called law enforcement, the Child's life had been threatened, Mother was unconcerned about the Child's safety as a result of this threat, and Mother said that she did not want the Child at home. Mother also reportedly “stated she is the victim.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 89.

[11] The evidence the trial court considered in entering the Dispositional Decree demonstrates that Mother believes the Child is the sole cause of any problems and does not believe she needs any individual or family therapy to address the reason for the CHINS determination. However, again, she admitted the Child is a CHINS and that she needs assistance meeting his mental health and behavioral needs, and she agreed to the coercive intervention of the court. Further, the record shows that DCS's involvement was initiated by a report that the Child's life was threatened and that Mother did not want the Child in her home or show concern for his safety. Additionally, the trial court noted “this is a situation with ․ at the very least a traumatic event for a family to go through” and “that the family therapy is something that needs to happen.” Tr. Vol. II at 27. The trial court further expressed a desire for the family to “figure out a way to communicate better together,” id. at 28, the goal being to “stabilize the situation with [the Child] and have a positive family relationship moving forward,” id. at 29. This record supports the trial court's finding that Mother's participation in services is necessary, and that finding supports the Participation Order's requirement for Mother to participate in family functional therapy. In this case, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Mother to participate in family functional therapy, which apparently includes an individual therapy component for Mother.

[12] Mother also asserts that she has a Fourteenth Amendment right to raise the Child without undue interference from the State. However, she concedes that such a parental interest is “not without limitation,” Appellant's Br. at 13, because “[t]he state has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of the child by intervening in the parent child relationship when parental neglect, abuse, or abandonment are at issue,” id. (quoting E.P. v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1031–32 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). Mother does not dispute the evidence showing she did not want the Child and did not see a need to protect the Child from a threat to kill the Child, all of which would support a finding of neglect. Again, Mother admitted the Child was a child in need of services and that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary to ensure the Child received necessary services. Therefore, Mother's constitutional argument also fails.

Conclusion

[13] In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Mother should participate in family functional therapy. Nor has Mother shown a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to raise the Child without undue influence by the state. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's entry of the Dispositional Decree requiring Mother to participate in family functional therapy.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father is not a party to this appeal.

2.   Mother and her boyfriend have since married.

Felix, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and Riley, Sr. J., concur.