IN RE: J.H. and J.H. (Minor Children) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Thirteen-year-old Jn.H. (Son) was deemed a child in need of services (CHINS) based on evidence that his mother, T.T. (Mother), disciplined Son by donning a boxing glove and punching him in the face two or three times, causing him severe facial bruising. Son's twin sister, Ja.H. (Daughter), was also deemed a CHINS based on evidence that Daughter was generally present when Mother punched Son in the face and was thereafter exposed to Son's severe facial injuries. Additionally, the evidence suggested that Daughter was subjected to same type of physical discipline as Son. Mother appeals the trial court's CHINS determinations, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove Son and Daughter (collectively, Children) were seriously endangered or in need of the State's coercive intervention. We affirm.

Facts

[2] In April 2024, DCS removed Children from the care of Mother and Mother's husband, M.T. (Stepfather), after substantiating a report that Children were being physically abused. The trial court found probable cause for Children's removal and authorized their placement with a relative. DCS then petitioned to have Children adjudged to be CHINS. In pertinent part, the joint petition alleged the following:

d. On April 10, 2024, Family Case Manager (FCM) Kenya Christmas went to [Children's school] and spoke with [Son] and [Daughter] regarding the [abuse] allegations.

e. [Son] stated that [Mother] initially hit him in the face with an open hand.

f. [Son] then stated [Stepfather] came into his room, pinned his arms behind him and began hitting him in the face while wearing punching gloves.

g. [Son] explained [Mother] did not stop [Stepfather] but instead was hitting him as well.

h. [Son] reported this is not the first time he has been hit by [Mother].

i. [Daughter] stated she heard the punching gloves hitting [Son's] face.

j. [Daughter] also stated she has been punched and slapped by [Mother] that resulted in marks and bruises.

k. On April 10, 2024, FCM Christmas met with [Stepfather] who denied punching or hitting [Son].

l. [Stepfather] admitted to restraining [Son] and that [Mother] hit [Son] two or three times.

m. FCM Christmas spoke with [Mother] who stated she popped [Son] in the face with her hand once and then put on boxing gloves to pop [Son] again.

App. Vol. II, p. 17.

[3] At a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petition, FCM Christmas testified that DCS received a report of physical abuse against Son on April 9, 2024. The next day, April 10, FCM Christmas interviewed Son at his school and observed that “[Son] had red and purple bruising to the right side of his face that went all the way to the back of his ear, including the inside of his ear.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 10. FCM Christmas photographed Son's severe facial bruising during the interview, and the photographs were admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing.

[4] FCM Christmas further testified that she spoke with Mother and Stepfather about the abuse allegations. Both admitted that, in disciplining Son during a recent temper tantrum, Mother had punched Son in the face. According to FCM Christmas:

Mother stated that she just recently had surgery on her stomach area; [Son] kicked her in her stomach; she asked for [Stepfather] to grab [Son] when he came from the bathroom, so that she could speak with him. [Mother] stated that she popped [Son] about two, two or three times. She stated that she did pop him with a punching glove on because she does not like to use her bare hands. She stated that [Son] was screaming and yelling and kicking and was extremely angry.

***

[Stepfather] stated that he did not hit [Son], that [Mother] popped [Son] or hit him in the face about two or three times, that [Stepfather] was told to grab [Son] from in between the beds so that [Mother] could speak to him; um, that [Stepfather] did initially have the punching glove on but [Mother] asked for it, and she put it on, and [Stepfather] was just told to hold [Son] up so [Mother] could talk to him.

Id. at 11.

[5] Though FCM Christmas did not describe any instances of Mother disciplining Daughter, her testimony suggested that Daughter was subjected to the same “type of physical punishment” as Son. Id. at 13. Meanwhile, Mother and Stepfather denied that Mother had “ever” physically disciplined Children. Id. at 55, 57. They also offered an account of Son's temper tantrum incident that differed dramatically from what FCM Christmas had described.

[6] Mother and Stepfather testified that, on April 8, 2024, Son got into trouble at school and was sent home early for doing backflips off a table. That evening, while Children were doing chores around the house, Son had a tantrum about school and stormed off to his bedroom. Mother, who had recently had stomach surgery, followed Son to his room and attempted to calm Son down using a “coping exercise.” Id. at 25. This involved holding Son's arms down, counting, and doing a “breathing technique.” Id. But Son was screaming and kicking, putting Mother's stomach at risk. Mother therefore called for Stepfather to come perform the coping exercise with Son instead.

[7] Mother and Stepfather denied that Mother punched Son in the face and claimed they never told FCM Christmas that Mother had done so. According to Mother, Son told her that he sustained his severe facial bruising during a fight at school on April 9, the day after his tantrum. Mother testified that she did not observe Son's bruising on the evening of April 9 or the morning of April 10 because she was on bed rest following her surgery. She also indicated that Son's school refused to provide her with any information about Son's fight once DCS began investigating the abuse allegations.

[8] The trial court determined that Children were CHINS and, after a dispositional hearing, returned Children to Mother's care and ordered Mother and Children to participate in various services. Mother appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's CHINS determination.

Discussion and Decision

[9] 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). Here, DCS alleged that Children were CHINS under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1, which our Supreme Court has interpreted to require “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).

[10] Mother argues that DCS presented insufficient evidence to prove Children were seriously endangered or in need of the State's coercive intervention. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a CHINS determination, “[w]e neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. “We consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. And “[w]e reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous.” Id.

[11] The evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment shows that Son got into trouble at school and was sent home early on April 8, 2024. That evening, while Daughter was present in the home, Stepfather restrained Son while Mother donned a boxing glove and punched Son in the face two or three times. The next day, April 9, DCS received a report of physical abuse against Son. And the day after that, April 10, FCM Christmas observed and photographed Son's severe facial bruising.

[12] This evidence sufficiently proved that Son was seriously endangered by Mother and Stepfather's actions. And considering that Mother and Stepfather denied that Mother punched Son in the face after initially admitting she did so, the evidence sufficiently proved that Son needed the State's coercive intervention. See generally In re N.E., 198 N.E.3d 384, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (“The same evidence used by the court to determine that a parent's acts or omissions injured or endangered a child may also support that coercive intervention is necessary to safeguard the child.”).

[13] As for Daughter, the evidence shows that she was generally present when Mother punched Son in the face. It is also reasonable to infer that Daughter was exposed to the severe facial bruising her twin brother suffered as a result. Additionally, the evidence suggests that Daughter, too, was subjected to Mother's punches. Yet, Mother and Stepfather denied that Mother had ever physically disciplined Daughter. Given this, we cannot say DCS failed in its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Daughter also qualified for CHINS status.

[14] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.