IN RE: K.D. and J.D. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.W. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's determination that her children are Children in Need of Services (CHINS), arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and T.D. (“Father”) have two children: K.D., born in May 2010, and J.D., born in April 2012. Father admitted that the children are CHINS and does not participate in this appeal. The Department of Child Services (DCS) has been involved with the family for many years. Following several unsubstantiated reports of neglect and physical abuse from 2017 to 2019, DCS received another report of neglect in May 2020. That report was substantiated, and the children were adjudicated CHINS in Hendricks County that August. The children were returned to Mother's care in 2021, and the CHINS case was closed in 2022.

[3] In December 2023, DCS received a report that the children were victims of neglect and that Mother was using methamphetamine. Specifically, Mother had tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine and had marks on her arm consistent with substance abuse. When Family Case Manager (FCM) Kristina Williams visited the family home to investigate the report, she noticed that J.D.’s room had “a strong odor of feces,” and Mother told her that J.D. “had just had an accident.” Tr. Vol. II p. 165. Mother explained that both children have encopresis, a condition that causes them to “defecate[ ] in [their] pants.” Appellee's Br. p. 8. Mother blamed the children's encopresis on DCS's past involvement with the family.

[4] In addition to encopresis, J.D. has been diagnosed with ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. He has a history of falling asleep in school, and Mother initially told school staff this was because J.D. has sleep apnea but then also claimed it was because he stayed up all night playing video games online with Father. The school referred J.D. to Cummins Behavioral Health for services, and Cummins contacted Mother four times to enroll J.D., but she never followed through. When J.D.’s teachers tried to contact Mother about him sleeping in class or soiling himself at school, she often didn't answer. The school also had trouble contacting Mother to engage her in J.D.’s individualized education plan.

[5] DCS received another report of neglect in January 2024, this time alleging that Mother couldn't properly care for the children's medical issues. Specifically, there was no documentation that the children were being treated for encopresis, and K.D. had recently been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes after being hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis. When FCM Williams visited the home again on January 25, Mother was “acting very erratic,” refused to let FCM Williams inside, and yelled at her. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 112. FCM Williams had to call law enforcement to accompany her into the home. Mother initially ignored law enforcement and locked herself and the children inside the home with the lights off. In all, FCM Williams was there for several hours, and Mother was “combative, argumentative, and defiant” the entire time, all while the children were present. Id. at 113. At the end of the visit, DCS detained the children, and FCM Williams described it as her “worst detention experience.” Tr. Vol. II p. 174. The children were placed in foster care, where they have since remained.

[6] The next day, DCS filed a petition alleging the children were CHINS. At the initial hearing, DCS reported that K.D. had used DoorDash on her cell phone to order a slushie to her foster home, which elevated her blood sugar and resulted in her being hospitalized again. Soon after this incident (which was not the first time K.D. secretly ordered unhealthy food from DoorDash), Mother texted K.D. to “make [her] sugar high.” Id. at 30; Ex. 1. The trial court ordered that K.D. not make any more DoorDash orders, and that if she did, her phone would be confiscated. Despite this order, K.D. ordered from DoorDash again, so DCS confiscated her phone.

[7] In addition to K.D.’s DoorDash orders, the children exhibited other “problematic” behaviors while in foster care. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 113. Both children's bedrooms were “a mess,” and J.D. became combative when asked to clean his room. Tr. Vol. II p. 118. When asked to do his homework, J.D. would “go into major, major temper tantrums”—he'd scream, bang his head into a table or on the floor, and “curse [the foster parents] out.” Id. at 107. He also repeatedly slammed his bedroom door and barricaded himself in his room, to the point where the foster father had to remove the door. If J.D. didn't want to do something or go somewhere, he would “weaponize” his encopresis by intentionally “[d]efecat[ing] himself” and refusing to clean himself up, sometimes “sit[ting] in it for hours.” Id. at 108-09, 125. After K.D. had her phone confiscated, she also began “defecating herself,” and there was “fecal matter all over” her bedroom. Id. at 117-18.

[8] For Mother's part, DCS referred her for individual mental-health services, but she never engaged. She also refused to submit to random drug screens for DCS because she “did not trust” the testing company DCS uses. Tr. Vol. III p. 7. Mother acknowledged that J.D. needed mental-health services but didn't agree to the services DCS recommended, so DCS had to get a court order for J.D. to go to talk therapy. Likewise, DCS had to get a court order for mental-health treatment for K.D. because Mother wouldn't sign the necessary release.

[9] The fact-finding hearing began on March 12 and, after running out of time, resumed and concluded on April 24. The children's foster father testified about their problematic behaviors but noted that overall, both children have shown improvement since being in their placement. The visitation supervisor testified that Mother came prepared for visits and had a good bond with the children, but she believes that Mother needs to learn more about managing K.D.’s diabetes and that the family could benefit from counseling or conflict-resolution services.

[10] In May, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the children to be CHINS. Later that month, the court held a dispositional hearing and thereafter issued an order setting forth various requirements for Mother.

[11] Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Mother contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's determination that the children are CHINS. We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only upon a showing that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We consider only the evidence that supports the decision and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id.

[13] Here, DCS alleged that the children were CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, which provides:

A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes eighteen (18) years of age:

(1) the child's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision:

(A) when the parent, guardian, or custodian is financially able to do so; or

(B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent, guardian, or custodian to seek financial or other reasonable means to do so; and

(2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that:

(A) the child is not receiving; and

(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.

An adjudication under this statute “requires three basic elements: that the parent's actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child, that the child's needs are unmet, and (perhaps most critically) that those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied.

[14] There is sufficient evidence in the record that Mother's actions and inactions have seriously endangered the children. At the outset of this case, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine and had marks on her arm consistent with substance abuse. Throughout the proceedings, Mother refused to submit to random drug tests for DCS and never engaged in mental-health services. When FCM Williams visited the home in January, Mother behaved erratically and combatively in front of the children, yelling at FCM Williams and refusing to cooperate. Mother knew K.D. had diabetes and that she had a history of ordering unhealthy food from DoorDash, yet when K.D. was hospitalized for doing so, Mother texted her to “make [her] sugar high” to sabotage the children's foster placement.

[15] The evidence also establishes that the children's needs are unmet and are unlikely to be met without State coercion. Before the children's removal, J.D. struggled with falling asleep in class and soiling himself at school, but Mother often didn't answer when the school called her about these issues. The school also had trouble engaging Mother in J.D.’s individualized education plan. When the school referred J.D. for services at Cummins, Mother never followed through to enroll him. Both children suffer from encopresis, and when FCM Williams visited the home in December 2023, J.D.’s room had a strong odor of feces. Yet there was no documentation that the children were being treated for this condition, and Mother instead blamed the encopresis on DCS's involvement with the family. The children's foster father reported that J.D. intentionally “[d]efecate[s] himself” and refuses to clean himself up. And once K.D.’s phone was confiscated, she also began “defecating herself” and had feces all over her bedroom. K.D. also has type 1 diabetes and has a history of secretly ordering unhealthy food from DoorDash, to the point where her cell phone had to be confiscated per court order. Additionally, DCS had to get a court order for mental-health treatment for the children because Mother refused to sign the necessary releases.

[16] Mother has not shown that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.

[17] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.