IN RE: N.K. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] J.K. (“Father”) appeals the adjudication of his children, N.K., Ja.K., and J.O. (collectively “Children”) as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). He presents several arguments, but we find one issue dispositive: Whether the trial court's findings support its conclusion that Children's physical or mental health was seriously endangered or seriously impaired by Father's inability or unwillingness to maintain sobriety and a safe home environment such that the coercive intervention of the trial court was needed. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father is the sole caregiver for N.K., born June 6, 2012; Ja.K., born November 8, 2013; and J.O., born March 17, 2020. Children's mother (“Mother”) is deceased. On November 9, 2023, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report from school personnel that, during end-of-the-day pick-up, Father “was slumped over, passed out and had drool coming out of his mouth.” (Appellant's App. Vol. II at 15.) When a staff member woke him, Father indicated he was there to pick up “Aubrey Ashley” (id.), but that is his sister, who was not a child at the school. A school resource officer observed Father was “slurring his words.” (Id.) The school resource officer took Father's keys, and a relative came to the school to pick up Father and Children.

[3] The same day, Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Kinzie Stewart investigated the report. She spoke with Father on the phone, and he told her he arrived early to pick up Children from school “so he kicked back and dozed off in the vehicle.” (Appellee's App. Vol. II at 16.) FCM Stewart researched the family's history with DCS and found that Children were adjudicated as CHINS in 2021 based on Mother's substance abuse. She further discovered that, also in 2021, Father had been convicted of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine ¹ and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.² As a result, the criminal court ordered Father to participate in Problem Solving Court, which he completed on June 28, 2023.

[4] On November 20, 2023, school personnel reported another incident during which Father was “impaired and slurring his words.” (Tr. Vol. II at 8.) FCM Stewart visited the family home and was unable to make fact-to-face contact with Father. DCS reassigned the case to FCM Rachel Allen before FCM Stewart could speak to Father about the November 20, 2023, incident.

[5] On December 28, 2023, FCM Allen went to the family home and was able to speak with Father and Children. She discussed the allegations with Father. Father “denied being under [the] influence” at the time of the November 9, 2023, and November 20, 2023, incidents. (Id. at 13.) FCM Allen offered Father a drug screen and Father refused, stating he needed to speak with a group that purports to help fathers “reconnect and build relationships with their children” called “We Help Dads” before agreeing to do so. See www.facebook.com/weHelpDads/ [https://perma.cc/QR8A-SDEV]. FCM Allen gave Father her contact information and left.

[6] On January 15, 2024, DCS received a third report regarding Father. This report alleged the family home did not have heat. FCM Allen investigated the report and spoke with Ja.K. and N.K. Ja.K. told FCM Allen the family was “using a generator to heat some of the rooms” and “there was not a lot of food in the home.” (Appellant's App. Vol. II at 15.) Ja.K. also told FCM Allen that Father had been “doing something that has been making him very sleepy[,]” Father was frequently not home, and when he was he “spen[t] all his time in his room.” (Id.) Finally, Ja.K. told FCM Allen that he was unsure whether there was running water in the house and “he hadn't taken a shower in weeks.” (Id.) N.K. confirmed that some of the rooms in the family home were heated by the generator and that the family did not have a lot of food. She also told FCM Allen the water in the house was cold, but “she got to take a bath when she was at a friend's house over the weekend.” (Id.) Father would not allow FCM Allen speak to J.O.

[7] FCM Allen spoke with Father on January 18, 2024. During that phone call, Father told FCM Allen the family home did not have heat because “he owed $600.00 on the bill ․ [and] something had to be fixed before the bill uh the gas could be turned back on.” (Tr. Vol. II at 16.) FCM Allen believed Father was impaired during the call because “it was really hard to understand him.” (Id. at 17.) FCM Allen again offered Father a drug test because DCS was concerned Children did not have a sober caregiver. Father initially “declined to do the drug screens because he had a false positive from an oral screen during a previous case” but stated “he would be willing to do a urine screen.” (Id. at 17.) However, later in the call, he told FCM Allen he would not submit to a drug screen unless ordered to do so by the trial court.

[8] On January 22, 2024, DCS filed a petition to declare Children as CHINS based on Father's showing up at school impaired twice, Father's alleged drug use, and the state of the family home. After filing the petition, DCS removed Children from the family home and placed them with their maternal grandmother, where they have remained. On January 24, 2024, the trial court held a combined initial hearing and detention hearing. Father did not have counsel. Father denied Children were CHINS and was appointed counsel.

[9] The trial court ordered Children to remain in relative care and Father to submit to a drug test. After the hearing, FCM Allen and FCM Amy Koza met with Father to obtain the biological sample for the drug screen. FCM Allen observed Father “appeared impaired” because he was “slurring ․ [and] his words were um uh kind of hard to understand sometimes.” (Id. at 21.) Additionally, Father “wasn't understanding why the Judge had upheld the detention ․ [and] was frustrated with having to do an oral screen versus any other kind of screen.” (Id. at 27.) FCM Allen and FCM Koza “had to explain to him multiple times about the whole process” of taking the sample. (Id.) Father tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. After she conducted the drug screen, FCM Allen passed the case to FCM Koza.

[10] Father was scheduled for another drug screen on February 1, 2024, but Father did not arrive. On February 8, 2024, FCM Koza visited the family home and spoke to Father. She noticed Father seemed impaired. Father agreed to be screened and tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC. Father did not allow FCM Koza to visit the home after her visit on February 8, 2024.

[11] On March 19, 2024, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petition. Father told the trial court that he paid $3,200.00 to fix the heat and that the house had hot water, but FCM Allen was unable to confirm these facts because Father would not allow her entry. Without objection from Father, DCS presented Father's positive drug screens. Father testified he had not been using methamphetamine or THC at the time of the February 8, 2024, drug screen but admitted he used THC “a couple of weeks” before the fact-finding hearing. (Id. at 53.) Father told the trial court that the last time he visited Children was approximately two weeks before the fact-finding hearing because “the person that does the visits” had not contacted him. (Id. at 54.)

[12] Therapist Heather Weston worked with Children and Father during the 2021 CHINS case. She told the trial court that she met with Father shortly after the initial hearing in this CHINS case and that he completed an intake assessment with her. She told the trial court that she would like Father to participate in individual therapy to help him deal with Mother's death. She said she would also like Father to address his substance abuse issues. Father did not attend therapy with Weston following the most recent intake. Prior to the fact-finding hearing, DCS submitted referrals for Father to attend a fatherhood engagement program, submit to random drug screens, attend individual and family therapy, and visit with Children. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, Father was only participating in supervised visitation with Children.

[13] On April 3, 2024, the trial court entered its order adjudicating Children as CHINS.³ The trial court conducted a dispositional hearing on April 17, 2024, and ordered Father to, among other things, stay in contact with the FCM, maintain suitable housing, obtain and maintain suitable employment, refrain from consuming illegal substances, obey the law, complete parenting and substance abuse assessments and follow all recommendations thereof, submit to random drug screens, and participate in individual counseling.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Father argues the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that Children's physical or mental health was seriously endangered or seriously impaired by Father's inability or unwillingness to maintain sobriety and a safe home environment such that the coercive intervention of the trial court was needed. Because a CHINS proceeding is a civil action, DCS 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). DCS alleged Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, which states:

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.

A CHINS adjudication focuses on the needs and condition of the child. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 476. The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is not to punish the parent but to provide proper services for the benefit of the child. Id. at 475. “[T]he acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention.” Id. at 476.

While we acknowledge a certain implication of parental fault in many CHINS adjudications, the truth of the matter is that a CHINS adjudication is simply that - a determination that a child is in need of services. Standing alone, a CHINS adjudication does not establish culpability on the part of a particular parent. Only when the State moves to terminate a particular parent's rights does an allegation of fault attach. We have previously made it clear that CHINS proceedings are “distinct from” involuntary termination proceedings. The termination of the parent-child relationship is not merely a continuing stage of the CHINS proceeding. In fact, a CHINS intervention in no way challenges the general competency of a parent to continue a relationship with the child.

Matter of To.R., 177 N.E.3d 478, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010)), trans. denied.

[15] When a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law in a CHINS decision, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re Des. B., 2 N.E.3d 828, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We consider first whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. We give due regard to the trial court's ability to assess witness credibility and do not reweigh the evidence; we instead consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment. Id. We defer substantially to findings of fact but not to conclusions of law. Id. “We accept unchallenged findings as true.” Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[16] Father argues ⁴ the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that Children's physical or mental health was seriously endangered or seriously impaired by Father's inability or unwillingness to maintain sobriety and a safe home environment such that the coercive intervention of the trial court was needed. Father does not challenge any of the trial court's findings, and thus we accept them as true. See id. (unchallenged findings accepted as true).

[17] When concluding Children were CHINS, the trial court entered several findings:

6. [DCS] received a report on November 9th, 2023, that Father was at Children's school, slumped over in a vehicle, passed out, and slurring his words. [DCS] received a second report on November 20, 2023, that Father was impaired and slurring his words while at [Children's] school.

7. [Children] were previously adjudicated [CHINS] in cause numbers 48C02-2112-JC-361, 362, and 363, due to Mother's substance abuse.

8. Father has a conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, Level 4 Felony, and Carrying a Handgun without a License, Class A Misdemeanor, in Cause Number 48C03-2004-F4-000879.

9. [Father] testified as to the incident at [Children's] school, reporting that a school police officer had taken his keys from him due to not having valid paperwork for the car, and Father's sister came to pick [Children] up. At no point was he under arrest, no field sobriety tests or other efforts to detect impairment were performed by the school officer, no other law enforcement personnel were summoned to do an impairment investigation, despite DCS’[s] allegations and implications that he was impaired in a school car pool pick up line. DCS presented no witnesses from the school or law enforcement to contradict Father's testimony. No charges were ever made against Father for any event alleged or suggested by DCS.

10. On December 28, 2023, following a change of DCS personnel, the new case manager sought Father's permission to perform a drug screen, at a period when no formal CHINS action had been filed. Father declined the request. The DCS case manager testified that, “As you know, we require proof of sobriety whenever there is an allegation of substance abuse ․,” and that the “indication from my supervisor was that we needed to get him to [a] drug screen in order to ensure that [Children] had a sober caregiver.” DCS admitted that they had not seen anything to suggest Father was impaired at the time they were seeking a drug screen. DCS again did not take any official filing or removal action despite Father refusing to screen for them on that date, indicating that they did not believe Father was impaired at the time, or they would have removed [Children].

11. On January 15, 2024, DCS received a report alleging that Father's home did not have heat, prompting another investigation. DCS observed [Children] at their school on January 16, 2024, finding them in good condition, and again made no attempt to remove them from Father. DCS spoke with Father on January 18, 2024, stating he was hard to understand, but gleaning that he owed money to pay his gas bill. DCS again did not remove [Children] from Father's care on January 18, 2024, despite having direct contact with him and being able to observe his condition. Father was offered a drug screen, but DCS refused Father's offer to do a urine screen instead of an oral screen.[5] DCS then filed a motion to compel against Father, seeking to force him to do a drug screen on DCS’[s] terms, which was set for hearing on January 24, 2024.[6] Four days after DCS directly interacted with Father (January 18), and two days prior to the hearing on the motion to compel, and without any new report or demonstration that [Children] were in peril or being deprived of any necessities, DCS detained [Children] at their school on January 22, 2024.

12. DCS had no interaction with Father on the date of detention to evaluate his condition and determine if he was impaired or otherwise using illegal substances. On the date of detention, [Children] were again observed to be clean, healthy, and free from any signs of abuse or neglect. The DCS investigator admitted at the trial that she did [not] know whether Father had used any drugs, when he used if he had in fact used any drugs, where the Children were if he had used, if the Children were present if he had used, if he was impaired around them at all, or if any impairment negatively impacted them.

13. On December 28, 2023, [FCM Allen] was assigned to help with the November 2023 assessments.

14. FCM Allen spoke to Father about the second report from November 20, 2023. Father denied being under the influence. Father declined taking a drug screen on that date until he was able to speak to “We Help Dads.”

15. FCM Allen made additional attempts to obtain a drug screen from Father but was unsuccessful. The assessments were staffed and [DCS] was going to pursue a Motion to Compel. However, before the Motion could be filed and a hearing held, [DCS] received an additional report.[7]

16. On January 15, 2024, [DCS] received a third report. The report was a two-hour report that the home did not have utilities during the negative degree temperature weather. Specifically, the gas was turned off, and the home did not have any heat.

17. [DCS] made several attempts to see the home but were unsuccessful.

18. FCM Allen spoke with Father over the phone, where he appeared to be impaired.

19. On January 18, 2024, FCM Allen spoke to Father about the new allegations. Father was unclear about why the gas had not been turned back on, talking about owing $600 on the bill, but also mentioning something needing fixed before the gas could be turned on.

20. FCM Allen made an additional attempt to obtain a drug screen from Father at that time to complete the assessments from November 2023. Father declined due to having an alleged false positive in a previous case. He did offer to submit to a urine screen, but not without a court order. He continued to deny being impaired but it was hard for FCM Allen to understand him. Additionally, Father was the sole caregiver for [Children].

21. Due to concerns of the extreme cold weather outside, lack of heat and gas in the home, and Father appearing to be impaired while the sole caregiver for [Children], [DCS] filed for a court order to detain [Children], which was granted on January 22, 2024.

22. On January 24, 2024, a Detention Hearing was held, and Father was ordered to submit a drug screen, which was admitted into evidence as DCS Exhibit A. The results of the drug screen were as follows:

a. Positive for 1083.2 ng/ml Amphetamine

b. 12,960.0 ng/ml Methamphetamine

c. 76.4 ng/ml THC.

23. Following the Detention Hearing, an impromptu Child and Family Team Meeting (“CFTM”) was held, where FCM Allen, FCM Amy Koza, Father, [therapist] Heather Weston, and Father's friend, April were present. While speaking with Father, Father appeared impaired. He was slurring, his words were hard to understand, he didn't seem to comprehend [what was being discussed], and it took him awhile to understand things. Father agreed to participate in services.

24. FCM Koza is the assigned permanency worker for the case.

25. On February 8, 2024, Father voluntarily submitted to a random drug screen, which was admitted into evidence as DCS Exhibit B. The results of that screen were as follows:

a. 956 ng/ml Amphetamine

b. >8000 ng/ml Methamphetamine

c. 38.64 ng/ml THC.

26. FCM Koza made the following referrals for Father: random drug screens (referral made February 14, 2024), Fatherhood Engagement (February 14, 2024), individual therapy (February 25, 2024), and traditional supervised parenting time (January 26, 2024).

27. FCM Koza was able to see the home on February 8, 2024, and the only working utility was water. She reached out to Father on three occasions to see the home, but he did not respond.

28. When she was at the home on February 8, 2024, the home was very cold, especially [Children's] rooms and it smelled like bleach. She also spoke to Father, and he appeared to be impaired while the sole caregiver of [Children].

29. Heather Weston is a therapist at Firefly Children and Family Alliance. She had worked with Father and [Children] before in the prior CHINS cases.

30. Following the January 24, 2024, Detention Hearing, Ms. Weston met with Father, and they scheduled an intake and assessment. Father completed that intake, and it was recommended that he complete substance abuse treatment due to concerns of substance abuse from the previous CHINS case when she was a service provider for the family.

31. Ms. Weston also is working with [Children] through therapy. Their therapeutic goals include [Children] processing their trauma.

32. Regarding the November 2023 incident, Father testified that he got to the school thirty minutes early, so he smoked a cigarette and was just “sitting back relaxing and kind of dozed off a little bit.” The officer came up to him and said that he “needed to call and have somebody pick up my kids” and pick up his vehicle. The officer did take his keys that day and Father had to have his sister come and pick him and [Children] up. Considering the evidence provided by [DCS], including the two positive drug screens for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC, and the fact that the police officer took Father's keys away and had Father get a ride, the Court does not find Father's explanation to be plausible.

33. Father denied there being a second incident at the school and testified that he did not return to the school until February.

34. Father also denied using methamphetamine and THC, despite the drug screen results.

(Amended Order at 2-6) (internal footnotes added). Based on its findings, the trial court concluded:

7. [Children's] physical and mental conditions are seriously endangered by their continued exposure to illegal substances. [Children] have been involved in a prior case due to Mother's drug use. [DCS] received two reports in November 2023 but was unable to complete their assessments due to Father's uncooperativeness. When [DCS] was getting ready to file a Motion to Compel on Father, a third report came in. In the few interactions that the FCMs had with Father, he appeared to be under the influence while being the sole caregiver for [Children]. When [DCS] was finally able to get a drug screen from Father, he had high levels of Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, and THC in his system. Additionally, when the January 2024 report came in, the home was observed to be very cold and without gas or heat.

8. Father denied drug use at the Fact-Finding Hearing and denied that he used methamphetamine or THC when the drug screens came back positive for those substances. The Court does not find Father's testimony credible.

9. The Court finds that the coercive intervention of the court is needed for Father to comply with [DCS] and services.

(Id. at 7.)

[18] Father argues the trial court's findings do not support its conclusions because one of the reasons that prompted the DCS investigation, lack of heat in the family home, did not exist at the time of the fact-finding hearing. While Father is correct that a CHINS adjudication “may not be based solely on conditions that no longer exist.” In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The trial court should “also consider the parents’ situation at the time the case is heard by the court.” Id. Father contends the family home had heat at the time of the fact-finding hearing and his testimony supports that contention. However, the trial court found Father lacked credibility, and Father refused DCS access to his home so that a case worker could confirm that the house had heat. Moreover, the failure to maintain heat in the family home was not the only reason the trial court adjudicated Children as CHINS – the trial court also relied on Father's drug use to support its determination Children were CHINS. The trial court's findings support its conclusion that Children's physical or mental health was seriously endangered or seriously impaired by Father's inability or unwillingness to maintain sobriety and a safe home environment such that the coercive intervention of the trial court was needed. See, e.g., Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 476-7 (child seriously endangered and needs unmet based on parents’ domestic violence and refusal to participate in domestic violence services).

Conclusion

[19] The trial court's findings supported its conclusion that Children's physical or mental health was seriously endangered or seriously impaired by Father's inability or unwillingness to maintain sobriety and a safe home environment such that the coercive intervention of the trial court was needed. Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of Children as CHINS.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(c).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(e) (2017).

3.   On November 27, 2024, we ordered the trial court to amend its April 3, 2024, order to comply with Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. The trial court issued its new order on December 16, 2024. We refer to this order as “Amended Order.”

4.   In addition to this argument, Father presents two other issues on appeal, but both are waived. The first – whether DCS violated his due process rights when it required him to submit to drug tests without a court order – is waived because Father did not raise the argument before the trial court. See Matter of G.M., 71 N.E.3d 898, 904-5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (issue not first presented to the trial court is waived for appellate consideration). The second – whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the results of a drug screen conducted on January 24, 2024 – is waived because Father did not object to the admission of Exhibit A at trial. See In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d at 834 (stating the failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review).

5.   The part of Finding 11 that states, “Father was offered a drug screen, but DCS refused Father's offer to do a urine screen instead of an oral screen” (Amended Order at 3), is unsupported by the evidence. FCM Adams testified that she offered Father an oral drug screen and Father “declined to do the drug screens because he had a false positive from an oral screen during a previous case.” (Tr. Vol. II at 16-17.) She told the trial court that Father said “he would be willing to do a urine screen ․ [but] said he would not drug screen until court when the Judge ordered him to screen.” (Id. at 17.) However, even though this finding is erroneous, it is superfluous because there are other findings supported by the evidence regarding Father's drug use and, thus, is not fatal to the judgment. See Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 397 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“To the extent that the judgment is based on erroneous findings, those findings are superfluous and are not fatal to the judgment if the remaining valid findings and conclusions support the judgment.”).

6.   This part of Finding 11, which states “DCS then filed a motion to compel against Father, seeking to force him to do a drug screen on DCS’[s] terms, which was set for hearing on January 24, 2024” (Amended Order at 3), is also unsupported by the evidence. DCS did not file its CHINS petition until January 22, 2024, and there is nothing in the record indicating a motion to compel was filed. Additionally, FCM Adams testified DCS was “going to pursue a Motion to Compel ․ but before [they] could get that filed ․ the third report [regarding the lack of heat in the family home] came in[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 29.) However, even though this finding is erroneous, it is superfluous because there are other findings supported by the evidence regarding Father's drug use and thus is not fatal to the judgment. See Lasater, 809 N.E.2d at 397 (“To the extent that the judgment is based on erroneous findings, those findings are superfluous and are not fatal to the judgment if the remaining valid findings and conclusions support the judgment.”).

7.   The portion of this finding regarding the motion to compel is inconsistent with similar language in Finding 11. The statement in this finding that DCS “was going to pursue a Motion to Compel. However, before the Motion could be filed, [DCS] received an additional report,” (Amended Order at 3), is supported by the evidence. Internally inconsistent findings in an order are not fatal to a judgment unless failure to overturn the judgment is “inconsistent with substantial justice.” In re Adoption of D.C., 928 N.E.2d 602, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Indiana Trial Rule 61), trans. denied. Additionally, we do not reverse judgments on appeal for errors when the “probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A). While there is an inconsistency between Finding 11 and Finding 15, and while Finding 15 is supported by the record and Finding 11 is not, the filing (or lack thereof) of a Motion to Compel does not factor into whether the valid findings support the trial court's determination that Children were CHINS. Accordingly, any error is harmless.

May, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.