IN RE: O.D. and S.D. (Children in Need of Services) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] P.D. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's determination that his minor children, S.D. and O.D., (together, “Children”) are children in need of services (“CHINS”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The evidence most favorable to the trial court's CHINS adjudication indicates that Father is the biological father of S.D., born in February 2023, and O.D., born in January 2024. Children's mother is D.L. (“Mother”).¹

[3] On January 22, 2024, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that Children were victims of neglect due to Mother's drug use. The report noted that upon his birth, O.D.’s umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Testing indicated that Mother used illegal drugs during her pregnancy, and she also admitted to having limited prenatal care. During an assessment of the family, Father was not cooperative, and DCS suspected that Father was also using illicit substances. DCS learned that Mother and Father lacked stable housing and a sober caregiver for Children. DCS removed Children from Mother's and Father's care and placed them with Father's mother and stepfather.

[4] On February 5, 2024, DCS filed petitions alleging that Children were CHINS. The court held an initial hearing on February 6, 2024, and thereafter ordered Children detained.

[5] On June 4, 2024, the court held a CHINS factfinding hearing. Father did not appear for the hearing but his appointed counsel appeared on his behalf. DCS presented the testimony of social worker Tiffany Calhoun (“Social Worker Calhoun”), Mother, Family Case Manager Julia Miller (“FCM Miller”), Family Case Manager Supervisor Nicholas Kirtman (“Supervisor Kirtman”), Family Case Manager Laurie Hamby, and Guardian Ad Litem Amanda Lawson (“GAL Lawson”).

[6] Social Worker Calhoun testified regarding Mother's drug use during her pregnancy and stated that when Mother “came to the hospital to deliver [O.D.] she was positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines and at that time also marijuana.” Transcript Volume II at 24-25. O.D. was delivered prematurely and required a feeding tube. During her testimony, Mother admitted to a history of methamphetamine use and to using during her pregnancy, but claimed her methamphetamine use during her pregnancy was “accidenta[l].” Id. at 28. Mother stated that she and Father were currently in a relationship, that he had a warrant for his arrest, and that she had not seen him in more than two months. Mother admitted that she and Father had been evicted from their housing multiple times, and she was evasive about where the family could live moving forward.

[7] FCM Miller testified regarding Mother's history of methamphetamine use, Mother's and Father's repeated refusals to submit to drug screens,² Mother's admission that both she and Father used marijuana, and her admission that she used marijuana while pregnant with O.D. FCM Miller also testified regarding Mother's criminal history, Father's pending criminal charges for battery and domestic battery, and the family's continuing housing instability.

[8] Supervisor Kirtman testified that both Mother and Father had been offered services, including substance use assessments, supervised visitation, and home-based case work, but failed to participate. GAL Lawson testified that it was her recommendation that Children be adjudicated as CHINS and that it was not in their best interest to be with their biological parents at this time.

[9] On June 24, 2024, the court issued its findings, conclusions, and order adjudicating Children as CHINS. Regarding Father specifically, the court found that Father had an active warrant for his arrest “stemming from domestic battery and battery charges” and failed to appear for the factfinding hearing. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 58. The court found Mother's testimony that she and Father are in a current relationship to be credible but did not find her claims about not seeing Father since March of 2024 to be credible. The court noted that Mother admitted to FCM Miller that she and Father used marijuana during the DCS assessment of the family. The court found that, during DCS's assessment, Father refused all requests for drug screens. The court determined that it could infer “that the results may have been positive for illicit substances.” Id. at 59.³ The court further found that the family has a history of housing instability, with Father and Mother being evicted from their housing on multiple occasions. The court concluded:

Based on Father's pattern of housing instability, his failure to care for his outstanding warrant for battery and domestic battery, his failure to show up to the Fact Finding, Mother's claim that she is unaware of where Father is residing despite their relationship, and Father's refusal to take drug screens, the Court finds that Father has been evasive and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Father is unable or unwilling to provide the children with necessary shelter and supervision.

Id. at 60. The court further concluded that despite being offered services, “neither parent has participated in any of the offered services” and that Father is “not willing to participate in services to address the safety concerns with the children without coercive intervention.” Id. at 60-61. Accordingly, the court found that DCS had met its burden of proof.

[10] The court held a dispositional hearing on July 16, 2024. Mother did not appear for the hearing. Father appeared for the hearing in custody. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Children needed “to reside in a safe and stable home free from abuse and neglect” and that Father's participation in services was necessary to enhance his ability to fulfill his “parental obligations and ensure the safety and well-being” of Children. Id. at 81. Accordingly, the court ordered Father to participate in various services. This appeal ensued.

Discussion

[11] Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's CHINS adjudication. In reviewing a trial court's determination that a child is in need of services, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and consider only the evidence which supports the court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. We apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 1287. We will reverse a CHINS determination only if clearly erroneous. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). A decision is clearly erroneous if the record facts do not support the findings or if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id. Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 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.

The statute does not require a court to wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, a child is a CHINS when the child is endangered by parental action or inaction. Id.

[12] The required proof of the statutory CHINS elements “guards against unwarranted State interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families ‘where parents lack the ability to provide for their children,’ [and] not merely where they ‘encounter difficulty in meeting a child's needs.’ ” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580-581 (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287). When determining whether the “coercive intervention” of the court is necessary, courts “ ‘should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’ ” Id. (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290). “Doing so avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them.” Id. (citing In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1289-1290). The focus of a CHINS determination is on the status of the child, not on an act or omission of the parent. See, e.g., In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105-106 (Ind. 2010); In re S.C., 96 N.E.3d 579, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

[13] DCS presented ample evidence to support the CHINS adjudication. O.D.’s umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, and Mother admitted to using drugs during her pregnancy. Mother continually refused to submit to drug screens and, throughout the pendency of this case, DCS was unable to verify that the family had stable housing. Father was noncooperative with DCS, refused to submit to any drug screens, and failed to participate in offered services. Moreover, Father failed to appear for factfinding and was still facing pending criminal charges as of the date of disposition. This evidence supports the court's conclusion that this family suffers from continuing housing instability as well as lack of a sober caregiver, and that Children's physical or mental conditions are seriously impaired or endangered and that they need care or treatment that is unlikely to be provided or accepted by Father without the coercive intervention of the court.

[14] In light of the evidence set forth above and in the record, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating Children as CHINS.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother was a party below but she failed to appear for disposition, and she does not participate in this appeal.

2.   The record indicates that Mother submitted to a single drug screen on February 2, 2024, which was negative for illicit substances. Mother refused to submit to any additional screens. Father refused to submit to any drug screens.

3.   Father concedes in his brief that the trial court “was free to draw an inference” from his refusals to submit to drug screens. Appellant's Brief at 8 n.2.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.