IN RE: I.S. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.S. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's finding that her child, I.S. (“Child”), is a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother and G.S. (“Father”) adopted three siblings, including Child, who has behavioral issues. Father tragically died a few years later. Child's behaviors then escalated and culminated in a physical altercation between Mother and Child. Mother was arrested, and Child was found to be a CHINS. On appeal, Mother challenges the trial court's findings that Child is a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2. Despite the unfortunate circumstances here, we conclude that the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issues

[2] Mother raises two issues, which we restate as whether the trial court clearly erred by determining that Child is a CHINS under both Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2.

Facts

[3] Child was born in 2008. Child and his two younger siblings were the subject of a CHINS action due to his biological parents’ drug addictions and domestic violence. The children were placed with then-foster parents—Mother and G.S. (“Father”)—in 2016.

[4] During the foster placement, Child was hospitalized for behavioral health issues on three occasions. Child was “out of control,” made threats, and “came after” Mother with a butter knife. Tr. Vol. II p. 102. Despite Child's mental health issues, Mother and Father decided in 2017 or 2018 to adopt all three children so that the siblings could stay together.

[5] After the adoption, Mother repeatedly attempted to find therapy services for Child. Child was evaluated at Centerstone, and Mother was told, “nobody is here that is qualified to help him with therapy.” Id. at 23. Eventually, Mother was able to obtain wrap-around services for Child at Centerstone, and Mother saw “positive progressions” with that program. Id. Child also participated in a therapy program with horses “to help him understand empathy with the horse riding,” but Child did not participate in other post-adoption services. Id. at 24.

[6] Father died suddenly in March 2023, and Child's behaviors have escalated since that time. Mother has been unable to “deescalate” Child's behaviors. Id. at 25. Mother tried to remove herself from the situations, but Child would follow her “relentlessly,” and the situations would last “several hours.” Id. Eventually, Mother would remove herself and the other children from the house and watch Child on a home security camera until he calmed himself. She sometimes made Child stand outside until he calmed down.

[7] Child would enter his siblings’ bedrooms at night, and his siblings began locking their bedroom doors to keep him out. Child told family members to kill themselves and was “verbally, mentally, [and] emotionally abusive” to his family members. Id. at 28. Additionally, several thousand dollars of damage was done to the residence by Child. Law enforcement was dispatched to the residence repeatedly, but Mother was unsuccessful in obtaining help to deal with Child's behaviors.

[8] Child was suspended from school multiple times, and Mother worked with the school to address Child's behaviors. An individualized education program allowed Child to have preferential seating and to leave class early to avoid being around other students in the hallway because “he gets upset and triggered by other students.” Id. at 82.

[9] Child was diagnosed with diabetes when he was approximately twelve years old; however, he has struggled to comply with his diet and medication. He would come home from school, eat whatever he wanted, and then inject himself with random amounts of insulin. On one occasion, Mother received an alert from Child's Dexcom system, which allows for monitoring of Child's glucose level; Mother returned home and gave Child medication to stabilize him after Mother realized Child had taken too much insulin.

[10] On December 9, 2023, law enforcement was dispatched to Mother's residence regarding a physical altercation between Mother and Child. They were arguing over Christmas gifts that Child wanted. Mother told Child that the money for his Christmas presents was going to be used to repair the damage to the residence caused by Child. Child followed Mother into the garage and “squared up to [Mother] ․ like he was going to fight her.” Id. at 9. Mother then struck Child with a broom on his back. Later, they argued again, and Child started punching holes in the wall and throwing items. Mother threw a soda bottle at Child. Officers observed a mark on Child's back from the broom. Child also claimed that Mother pulled him to the ground by his hair. Mother was arrested and charged with domestic battery, a Level 6 felony.

[11] DCS was notified of the situation, and Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Jessica Mitchell arrived at the residence. FCM Mitchell observed that she had to step over clothing and trash in the residence and five dogs resided in the home, which “smelled of urine.” Id. at 39. Initially, Child stayed in the residence with Mother's partner, but the next day, DCS received a request from Mother's partner to remove Child because of concerns regarding the partner's safety and the other children's safety. Other family members refused to care for Child due to his behaviors, and DCS detained Child at that time. Child's siblings were not removed from the home. When Mother was released from jail, she refused to take Child back due to safety concerns.

[12] On December 11, 2023, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -2. Mother lost her employment due to the criminal charge and the pending CHINS action. Mother repeatedly recommended that Child be placed in residential placement due to his refusal to comply with his diet and medication for his diabetes; Child's unpredictable behaviors; and Child's need for intense therapy.

[13] A fact-finding hearing was held in April 2024. Mother testified that she could not manage Child's needs in her home. Since Child's removal, Mother has worked with a home-based case manager on cleaning, budgeting, and parenting skills. Child has continued with life skills coaching because of his anger management issues and outbursts, lying, failure to take accountability for his actions, lack of coping skills, and family dynamics. Child, however, made little progress. Child has begun individual therapy and family therapy with Mother, which the therapist recommended should continue.

[14] Mother was referred for a parenting assessment but had not completed it at the time of the hearing because of the pending criminal charge. Mother was also referred for supervised visits with Child, but she had not visited. She has only seen Child during the family therapy sessions.

[15] During the CHINS proceedings, Child was placed in foster care, but he ran away from the home a few times. Law enforcement would have to locate and calm Child down. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, Child had refused to return to his foster placement due to his disputes with other children in the home. Child was then admitted to Meadows Hospital. A specialized assessment recommended that Child be placed in a qualified residential treatment placement.

[16] At the end of the fact-finding hearing, Mother requested that the trial court find Child a CHINS based upon Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6.¹ DCS objected to Mother's request because DCS had not requested a CHINS finding based upon Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6 in its petition.

[17] The trial court issued its order on June 3, 2024, and found Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, -2, and -6. The dispositional order was issued on July 28, 2024. The order noted that Child had been placed at Damar, residential treatment facility, for a diagnostic evaluation. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[18] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's determination that Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2. CHINS proceedings are civil actions; thus, “ ‘the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.’ ” Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010); see Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. (citing In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017). Here, the trial court entered, sua sponte, findings of fact and conclusions thereon in granting the CHINS petition. “ ‘As to the issues covered by the findings, we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014)). We review the remaining issues under the general judgment standard, which provides that 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)). We will reverse a CHINS determination only if it is clearly erroneous. D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 578.

[19] DCS must prove three elements for a juvenile court to adjudicate a child a CHINS: (1) the child is under the age of eighteen; (2) that one of eleven different statutory circumstances exist that would make the child a CHINS; and (3) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. Id. at 580.

[20] “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not [to] punish parents.” N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. A CHINS adjudication is not a determination of parental fault but rather is a determination that a child is in need of services and is unlikely to receive those services without the intervention of the court. Id. at 105. “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child ․ [T]he acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention.” Id. (citations omitted). “A CHINS finding should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290.

[21] Here, the trial court found Child to be a CHINS under three statutory categories—Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, -2; and -6. Mother does not challenge the determination that Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6. Thus, regardless of the outcome of Mother's appeal, the CHINS determination remains in effect.

[22] Mother's challenges to the trial court's order, however, “are not moot given the harmful collateral consequences that may be suffered by a parent following a CHINS determination.” In re A.T., 219 N.E.3d 90, 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). “For instance, a CHINS determination, especially one indicating that a parent had neglected or abandoned a child, could result in adverse job consequences or preclude a parent from serving as a foster parent in the future.” Id. (citing S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290). Accordingly, we will address Mother's appellate challenges to the juvenile court's order.

A. Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1

[23] We begin by addressing the trial court's finding that Child is a 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.

[24] The trial court found:

[Mother] adopted [Child] after his own parents subjected him to substantial trauma through their substance abuse. There is evidence that [Mother] is not able to care for [Child] at this time, due to his behaviors. [Child's] underlying diagnoses were present at the time he was adopted by the [parents]. However, there is also evidence that [Mother] did not utilize the services provided by the adoption subsidy and did not obtain counseling services for [Child] until October 2023. [Mother] observed an escalation in behaviors following the death of her husband, but did not obtain grief counseling for [Child] and admittedly did not attempt to obtain those services. [Mother] contributes to the negative dynamic, according to [Child's] providers. Therefore, the evidence supports the finding that [Mother's] inability in managing the dynamic may impair [Child's] mental well being.

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 31-32.

[25] On appeal, Mother seems to challenge the trial court's findings of serious endangerment and the necessity of coercive intervention of the court. She argues that the trial court's finding is clearly erroneous because the charge against her has been dismissed and there is a pending expungement. Mother also points out that the other children were not removed from her care; she has been aggressively advocating for Child's health needs; and she tried to “temper Child's increasingly violent outbursts” to the best of her ability. Appellant's Br. p. 16.

[26] We first note that, at the time of the fact-finding hearing and the trial court's CHINS order, the charge against Mother was still pending, and the finding was accurate. Moreover, as the State points out, even if the charge was later dismissed, the fact that Mother struck Child with a broom remains.

[27] Mother relies heavily on our opinion in A.T., 219 N.E.3d 90. There, the parents adopted a child with severe mental and behavioral issues. DCS community wrap-around services failed to resolve the child's violent behaviors, and parents met with the child's DCS family-care team. They agreed on a safety plan that included transporting the child to the hospital for a risk assessment, but a supervisor overrode the agreement and told parents to take the child home or “DCS would charge them with abandonment.” A.T., 219 N.E.3d at 95. DCS filed a CHINS action, and the trial court found the child to be a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1, -2, and -6. On appeal, the parents challenged the trial court's determination under Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -2 only. This court concluded that the record did not support a determination that the parents abandoned the child. Accordingly, we reversed the determination that the child was a CHINS under Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -2.

[28] We conclude that A.T. is distinguishable from this case. Here, DCS presented evidence of a physical altercation, which was not present in A.T. Despite Mother's knowledge of Child's behavioral issues, Mother did not obtain therapy for Child after the adoption or after Father passed away. Child's behavioral issues significantly increased after Father passed away, and Mother was simply unable to manage Child's behavior. The tension between Mother and Child culminated with the physical altercation in which Mother hit Child with a broom, leaving a mark on him. Under these circumstances, the trial court's finding that Child's mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of Mother's inability to supply Child with necessary supervision and/or medical treatment is not clearly erroneous.

[29] Mother also challenges the trial court's finding that the coercive intervention of the trial court was necessary. This element “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.’ ” D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580 (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287). “When determining CHINS status under Section 31-34-1-1, particularly the ‘coercive intervention’ element, courts ‘should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’ ” Id. (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290). “Doing so avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them.” Id. at 581.

[30] Mother argues that she attempted extensively to address Child's behaviors and health issues related to his diabetes, utilized all of the resources available to her, and was cooperative with DCS and law enforcement. The trial court, however, noted that Mother failed to obtain therapy for Child after the adoption or after the death of Father, when Child's behaviors escalated. During the CHINS proceedings, Mother only saw Child during therapy, and Mother testified that she did not want Child to return home at that time. Under these circumstances, Mother is merely requesting that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The trial court's findings that coercive intervention is necessary are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the trial court's conclusion that Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 is not clearly erroneous.

B. Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2(a)

[31] Next, Mother argues that the trial court erred by finding Child a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2(a), 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 health is seriously endangered due to injury by the act or omission of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; 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.

[32] We further note that Indiana Code Section 31-34-12-4 provides:

A rebuttable presumption is raised that the child is a child in need of services because of an act or omission of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competent evidence of probative value that:

(1) the child has been injured;

(2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, or custodian:

(A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or

(B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or control of the child;

(3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for the act or omission of a parent, guardian, or custodian; and

(4) there is a reasonable probability that the injury was not accidental.

[33] The trial court here found:

s. There is no dispute that [Mother] struck [Child] with a broom, leaving a bruise, and hours later, threw a Mountain Dew bottle at him in anger. There is a presumption that [Child] is a CHINS due to [Mother's] actions ․

Once this showing is made, the rebuttable presumption that a child is a CHINS applies to all the statutory CHINS elements in chapter 1, including the “coercive intervention” element. M.Y. v. State Dep't of Child Servs. (In re K.Y.), 145 N.E.3d 854, 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

t. [Child] was in [Mother's] care at the time he was injured by the broom, and she had legal custody. The evidence supports a finding that the injury was not caused by any accident, or that it occurred in any other fashion other than by the actions of [Mother].

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 32.

[34] It is undisputed that, during a verbal and physical altercation between Mother and Child, Mother hit Child on the back with a broom, leaving a mark on Child's back. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that Child is a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-12-4. The trial court found that Mother did not rebut the presumption, and we agree. DCS presented evidence that Child's physical or mental health was seriously endangered and that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary. Mother's arguments are merely a request to reweigh the evidence. The trial court's conclusion that Child is a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2(a) is not clearly erroneous.

[35] Although we might have reached a different result than the trial court here, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred based upon the statutes as written and our standard of review. We, however, find the result to be harsh. Mother, who adopted three children after they were neglected by their biological parents, was placed in an incredibly difficult situation after the death of Father—she was suddenly a single mother to three children, one of whom has severe behavioral issues. Mother was trying to obtain help to deal with Child's behaviors from the school and law enforcement without success. Mother's arrest for a mark on Child's back merely escalated the situation for this family. We look unfavorably on the decision to arrest Mother and charge her under the delicate circumstances of this case.

Conclusion

[36] Despite the unfortunate circumstances here, we cannot say the trial court's conclusion that Child is a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and -2(a) is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

[37] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6 provides:A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes eighteen (18) years of age:(1) the child substantially endangers the child's own health or the health of another individual; 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.

Tavitas, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Brown concur. Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.