IN RE: A.L.G. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] B.G.’s (“Mother”) minor child, A.L.G. (“Child”), was adjudicated a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother claims that the trial court erred by adjudicating Child to be a CHINS because DCS presented insufficient evidence to prove that Child's physical and mental condition was seriously endangered by Mother's actions, and that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary to ensure Child's needs were met. Finding otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2013, following Mother's failed drug screen for methamphetamine, Mother and Child's biological father, R.G. (“Father”),¹ admitted to DCS and the court that they used and sold illegal substances. Child, only four years old at the time, was adjudicated a CHINS by the court and then placed in the custody of her maternal grandparents. This CHINS case was closed shortly thereafter. Child lived with her maternal grandparents for the next nine years until her maternal grandfather died. Shortly thereafter, in June 2022, she moved back in with Mother and her fiancé (“Fiancé”).²

[3] Mother's inability to maintain a stable residence began as early as March 2021, when she was ordered to “remove [a] manufactured home from [a property].” Ex. Vol. 1 at 20. The family was eventually evicted from a Columbus, Indiana apartment and ended up living in camping tents for a while in the summer of 2023. At some point, Mother moved her family into a new home,³ but on April 12, 2024, Mother was ordered to vacate her home by May 12, 2024.

[4] In June 2023, DCS opened another case involving Mother, alleging P.G., Child's older sibling, was a CHINS. P.G. was adjudicated a CHINS on October 6, 2023, which this Court later affirmed on appeal. See Matter of P.G., No. 23A-JC-2888 (Ind. Ct. App. June 28, 2024) (mem.).

[5] Given her involvement with DCS in P.G.’s matter and subsequently in this case, Mother was regularly screened for drug usage between August 30, 2023 and April 9, 2024. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine thirteen times during this period, and she tested negative on only one occasion. She also failed to appear for many of her drug screens.

[6] In the meantime, following time he spent in hospice, Father died on October 17, 2023. Father's death occurred toward the beginning of Child's 2023-24 eighth grade school year. Over the course of the school year, Child accumulated dozens of unexcused absences, additional excused absences, and had mostly failing grades.

[7] On January 18, 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging Child to be a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 based on Child's “educational absences, the lack of medical care,⁴ and substance abuse by the child's caregivers[.]” Id. at 24. DCS amended its petition on March 14, 2024, adding “unstable housing” for Child to its original allegations. Id. at 72.

[8] A fact-finding hearing was held on April 25, 2024—Child was fourteen years old at the time. At the hearing, testimony was provided by Mother, Child's school counselor, a qualified behavior health specialist who had worked with Mother, a DCS family case manager, and Child's Guardian Ad Litem.

[9] On May 14, 2024, the trial court issued its order adjudicating Child to be a CHINS. The trial court made the following pertinent findings and conclusions:

8) The child has an excessive number of absences from school. During the current school year, the child has missed at least 38 unexcused days from school [ ]. The child also has at least 11 excused absences. Additionally, Mother admitted that the child had missed more school the week of the Fact-Finding hearing in this case. It is undisputed that the child has missed at least 50 days of school this school year. With the school year consisting of 180 school days and the child missing 50 of those school days, the child has already been absent for 27.7% of her school year.

․

10) The child's father passed away in October 2023. Per the child's school counselor, 10 days are typically excused for a student with a death in the family. This can be reasonably extended with communication from the family. In this case, a parent did not notify the school regarding the child's absences. There was no parent communication, but even if there was, the amount of absences in this case is not reasonable.

11) Mother testified at the hearing that the multiple absences were a result of [Child's] Father passing away on October 17, 2023 and that [Child] could “take all the time that she needed.”

12) The Court is not convinced that the school gave a blanket approval for not attending school after hearing testimony from [Child's] guidance counselor that they would not do so.

13) The child has been negatively impacted by the absences as evidenced by the child's grades. The child's current grades reflect four F (failing) grades, along with one D-, one D, and one D+[ ].

․

16) The attendance history of P.G. [ ] and the child in this case [ ] shows a pattern that supports DCS's claim that Mother is failing, neglecting or refusing to send her children to school for the “full term”.

17) Appropriate and stable housing is also of concern for the child. When Mother, child, and Mother's Fiancé “the family” moved into their current home, there was no running water. DCS has not been in the home since October 2023 despite attempts. As such, DCS is unable to verify the current conditions of the home.

18) The family is currently facing eviction. An Order of Ejectment was entered ․ and the family must vacate the premises of their current home on or before May 12, 2024 [ ]. There was no testimony that the family has a place to live after May 12, 2024, other than she was approved for HUD funding. No location has been secured as of the date of the hearing.

․

23) Mother admits that all but one of the drug screens she has been taking are returning positive for methamphetamine and also admits that she used methamphetamine in the past when she was withdrawing from opiates. Mother also claims to be allergic to Sudafed and argues that she cannot use methamphetamine because of her allergy. The Court does not find Mother's statements to be credible, and the Court finds mother's arguments denying drug use unpersuasive.

․

27) DCS has provided services to Mother. DCS has even made significant additional efforts to accommodate Mother including providing Mother with gas cards for transportation [ ]. DCS also referred Cordant to drug screen Mother at her home instead of requiring her to come to the office, but Mother was not compliant [ ]. Despite receiving court-ordered services in P.G.’s case, Mother has failed to make any significant progress with her substance abuse, instability, or meeting her children's educational needs.

28) DCS has provided Mother with Home Based Casework through ASI to assist Mother with numerous goals including employment, transportation, and housing. Mother has not met with her Home Based Caseworker since March 6, 2024 despite being unemployed and facing eviction.

․

32) Mother and Mother's Fiancé have a pattern of methamphetamine use. This use likely contributes to the family's housing instability and the inability or unwillingness to ensure the child attends school regularly. With at least 50 absences and failing grades during the current school year, it is clear that the child is experiencing educational neglect. It is more likely than not that Mother's substance abuse is contributing to this neglect and the family's housing instability.

․

35) The Court has significant concerns for [Child] with regards to her Mental Health, Drug Screens, Sober Caregiver, Education, and Housing.

36) It is clear to the Court that DCS has met its burden in proving the coercive intervention of the court is needed.

37) The Court finds that [Child] is a Child in Need of Services.

Id. at 80-83.

[10] On May 17, 2024, DCS filed a request to remove Child from the home environment. That same day, the trial court granted DCS's request, ultimately placing Child with her paternal grandfather. Following the dispositional hearing on June 10, 2024, the trial court ordered that Child remain in her current placement with paternal grandfather subject to the supervision of DCS and ordered Mother to participate in various reunification services.

Discussion and Decision

[11] In a CHINS proceeding, “the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). “When reviewing a trial court's CHINS determination, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017). “Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. at 578. Where, as here, a trial court enters sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon, “we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. We review any “remaining issues under the general judgment standard, under which a judgment ‘will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997)). When specific factual findings are not challenged, “we simply determine whether the unchallenged findings are sufficient to support the judgment.” In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. We reverse a CHINS determination only if it is clearly erroneous. K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. “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.’ ” D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 578 (quoting Yanoff, 688 N.E.2d at 1262 (Ind. 1997)).

[12] Here, DCS alleged that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, which required it to prove:

(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.

In other words, “[t]he statute contains three basic elements: (1) the parent's actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child; (2) the child's needs are unmet; and (3) those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.” Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

[13] Mother argues that DCS presented insufficient evidence to show that Child's physical or mental condition was seriously endangered, and that Child's needs would not be met without court intervention. In response, the State suggests that “all of Mother's arguments are [ ] requests to reweigh the evidence.” Appellee's Br. at 16. We agree with the State. Mother does not specifically challenge any of the trial court's findings, “and thus they stand proven.” R.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 203 N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). To the extent Mother's arguments could be seen as attacking any specific findings, those arguments are simply impermissible requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence. D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577-78. Mother extensively explains what ‘[t]he record reflects’ and which ‘undisputed’ facts support her position, but her version of events mischaracterizes what occurred as found by the trial court. For example, Mother asserts that “[t]he record reflects Mother did not neglect the Child's education, but was forced to balance the Child's education[al] needs against the Child's need to grieve the loss of Father and secure medical attention for the Child.” Appellant's Br. at 13-14. While losing a parent in childhood is an incredible tragedy, Mother's characterization of the evidence would require us to only consider the evidence and inferences that do not support the trial court's judgment, which is an undertaking we cannot entertain. See D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 578.

1. Serious Impairment or Endangerment.

[14] Mother argues that, even if the evidence was sufficient to show that she used methamphetamine ⁵ and the family faced housing instability, this did not prove Child was “negatively impacted” to an extent that Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or endangered. Appellant's Br. at 13. Mother contends any other conclusion would be “pure speculation.” Id. However, the record and the trial court's unchallenged findings discredit Mother's argument and support the trial court's conclusion.

[15] While Child was in her care, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine thirteen out of the fourteen times she was screened, including testing positive within two weeks of the fact-finding hearing. On other occasions, she failed to show up for drug screens at all. The trial court based its CHINS adjudication on “additional evidence of neglect beyond the mere use of [methamphetamine].” Matter of D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (concluding that a special needs child was seriously endangered by his parents’ methamphetamine use and related inability to supervise him), trans. denied. Significantly, Child missed approximately fifty days of her eighth-grade school year, or about 27.7% of the entire academic year. Most of her absences were unexcused because the school did not approve Child's extended leave following Father's death and Mother failed to communicate with the school about this issue. The trial court found that “the amount of absences in this case [was] not reasonable” and that Child had been “negatively impacted” by those absences as she had failing grades in most of her classes. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 80-81.

[16] After weighing the evidence, the trial court explained the interactivity between Mother's drug use, the family's housing instability, and Child's educational issues as follows:

32) Mother and Mother's Fiancé have a pattern of methamphetamine use. This use likely contributes to the family's housing instability and the inability or unwillingness to ensure the child attends school regularly. With at least 50 absences and failing grades during the current school year, it is clear that the child is experiencing educational neglect. It is more likely than not that Mother's substance abuse is contributing to this neglect and the family's housing instability.

Id. at 83. Given the unchallenged factual findings and our deferential view of the evidence, we conclude the trial court did not clearly err in determining that Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or endangered by Mother's neglect of Child's needs.

2. Coercive Intervention.

[17] Mother argues that DCS failed to prove the coercive intervention of the court was necessary. Mother's argument in this respect simply consists of another request for this Court to reweigh the evidence. See D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577-78. Nonetheless, the unchallenged findings and record support the trial court's conclusion that DCS proved that Child's needs were unlikely to be met without the coercive intervention of the court. See I.C. § 31-34-1-1(2)(B).

[18] “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not punish parents.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). To that end, the coercive intervention element of a CHINS determination “guards against unwarranted State interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families ‘where parents lack the ability to provide for their children,’ not merely where they ‘encounter difficulty in meeting a child's needs.’ ” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287 (quoting Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526, 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)) (emphasis in original). To avoid punishing parents for past mistakes that have been corrected, trial courts “should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580-81 (holding that while coercive intervention may have been required early in the CHINS process, the factual findings “certainly did not show that Parents needed such intervention by the time of the fact-finding hearing months later,” as the parents had satisfactorily completed all required services) (internal quotations omitted). DCS “must prove not only that one or the other of the parents suffers from shortcomings, but also that the parents are unlikely to meet a child's needs absent coercive court intervention.” E.K., 83 N.E.3d at 1261.

[19] Here, DCS attempted to provide services to Mother, including home-based casework to achieve goals related to employment, housing, and transportation. Mother had not met with her caseworker in the month before the fact-finding hearing, had not let DCS in the home since October 2023 despite the agency's attempts, and she remained “unemployed and facing eviction.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 82. Mother was also referred for at-home drug screening but was “not compliant” and tested positive for methamphetamine thirteen out of fourteen times between August 30, 2023 and April 9, 2024. Id. The trial court found “unpersuasive” Mother's continued denial of drug use and determined that “Mother has failed to make any significant progress with her substance abuse, instability, or meeting [Child's] educational needs.” Id. “[A] court need not wait until a tragedy occurs before entering a CHINS finding,” and the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary to ensure Child's needs were met. E.K., 83 N.E.3d at 1261.

Conclusion

[20] The trial court's adjudication of Child as a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 was not clearly erroneous.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father died on October 17, 2023, and was not a party to these CHINS proceedings.

2.   Fiancé has a criminal record and a history of drug use. In 2017 and 2021 respectively, Fiancé pled guilty to Class B misdemeanor battery and Level 6 felony pointing a firearm. In both instances, he was placed on probation, which was revoked shortly thereafter due to Fiancé testing positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.

3.   Mother was subject to this order of ejectment at the April 25, 2024 fact-finding hearing. When Mother initially moved her family into this home, it did not have running water.

4.   At the April 25, 2024 fact-finding hearing, counsel for DCS successfully moved to admit a substantial amount of Child's medical records with Ascension Medical Group (“Exhibit 6”) based on an erroneous statement that she had fully produced the records to opposing counsel. Later that day, counsel filed a notice correcting her statement and stating that she had discovered she had not provided the records in full. The trial court later issued an order striking Exhibit 6 from the record and stating, “the Court will not be considering [Exhibit 6] or its contents to make any decisions regarding this matter.”

5.   Notably, despite returning thirteen drug screens positive for methamphetamine, Mother still does not concede that she used the drug in 2023 and 2024. See Matter of D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (finding important that the parents “exhibited no insight into their substance use, denying they have a problem with methamphetamine and believing their use of methamphetamine has nothing to do with Child or their ability to take care of him”), trans. denied.

DeBoer, Judge.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.