IN RE: A.T. and K.T. (Minor Children) B.H. (Mother) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After engaging in a physical altercation in the presence of their two minor sons, B.H. (Mother) and A.T. (Father) (collectively, Parents) entered into an informal adjustment agreement with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS). The agreement required Parents to participate in various family preservation services, but they failed to comply. As a result, both of their sons were determined to be children in need of services (CHINS). Mother appeals this determination, claiming DCS presented insufficient evidence to prove her sons were CHINS.¹ We affirm.

Facts

[2] Parents have two sons: four-year-old A.T. Jr. and two-year-old K.T. (collectively, Sons). The family first became involved with DCS in 2021, before K.T. was born, when DCS substantiated a report of neglect as to A.T. Jr. Parents and DCS then agreed to a voluntary six-month informal adjustment, which required Parents to complete parenting and substance abuse assessments, participate in the services recommended by those assessments, and comply with random drug screens. The informal adjustment was closed at the end of its term.

[3] Two years later, after K.T. was born, DCS became involved with the family again due to domestic violence between Parents. While Sons were in the home, an argument between Mother and Father became physical, and Mother scratched Father's face. Police were called, and Parents were each charged with domestic battery in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old. Parents later resolved these charges by entering into pretrial diversion agreements.

[4] Based on this incident, DCS and Parents agreed to a second informal adjustment (Second Adjustment), which required Parents to complete a domestic violence assessment and follow its recommendations, comply with random drug screens, and engage in other family preservation services. But over the next six months, Mother did not complete the domestic violence assessment or otherwise address the issue. She also failed to comply with any drug screens, despite her history of methamphetamine use. Meanwhile, Father suffered a mental health crisis during which he stopped communicating with DCS, harmed himself, and spoke of harming his family. Because of Parents’ conduct, DCS petitioned to adjudicate Sons as CHINS. DCS also requested that the trial court restrict Father's access to Sons, and the court did so.

[5] At the factfinding hearing on the CHINS petition, a DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) emphasized Mother's noncompliance with the Second Adjustment. DCS also presented evidence showing that Mother had not taken any steps to protect Sons from Father, who posed a threat to Sons’ safety and well-being. Because Mother had not filed for sole custody or otherwise restricted Father's access to the family's home, only DCS involvement and the resulting court order kept Father from Sons. Mother expressed her intent to reunite with Father, testifying that her “family needs him back home.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 76. However, she later admitted she “would not leave [Father] alone with [her] children.” Id. at 77.

[6] The trial court ultimately adjudicated Sons as CHINS. The court found that Father posed a “threat to the safety and well-being” of Sons, and because Mother “made no progress in addressing the root cause of [the] domestic violence,” she was “not appropriate to supervise [Father]” if he were to return to the home. App. Vol. II, p. 85. After a dispositional hearing, the court ordered Parents to participate in services, including a domestic violence assessment and its recommendations. The court also ordered Mother to comply with a drug screen and, if she tested positive, to submit to continued screens.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Mother appeals the determination that Sons are CHINS. In reviewing a CHINS determination, we “do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility,” but consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment. In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017). When, as here, the trial court supplements its determination with findings of fact and conclusions of law, we first consider whether the evidence supports the findings, and, second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 578. We will reverse the CHINS determination only for clear error, which occurs when the record facts do not support the findings or when the wrong legal standard is applied. Id.

[8] DCS alleged Sons to be CHINS under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1. In pertinent part, this statute required DCS to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) Parents’ actions, inactions, or inabilities had seriously impaired or endangered Sons; (2) Sons had unmet needs; and (3) those needs were unlikely to be met without the coercive intervention of the court. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). Mother argues that DCS presented insufficient evidence to prove these elements. She also appears to implicitly challenge some of the trial court's factual findings and conclusions. Finding the record supports the court's determination that Sons are CHINS, we affirm.

I. Sons Were Seriously Endangered

[9] Mother first claims Sons were not seriously endangered because the domestic violence incident between Parents was a “single disagreement.” Appellant's Br., p. 9. The record, however, belies this characterization. The evidence shows that Parents engaged in a physical fight while Sons were in the home. During this fight, Mother scratched Father on the face, Father locked Mother out of the home, and Mother called police. In the end, both Parents were criminally charged for domestic battery in the presence of a child.²

[10] In arguing that a single incident of domestic violence is insufficient to prove serious endangerment, Mother relies on Matter of M.W., 119 N.E.3d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). But that case dealt with a physical altercation between two teenage siblings—not parents. Id. at 169. And the siblings’ mother voluntarily participated in all DCS-provided services, rather than a select few. Id. This Court has previously found that a single domestic violence incident can be sufficient to show endangerment, particularly when, as here, a parent has disregarded an informal adjustment's requirement to participate in domestic violence counseling. See K.B. v. Ind. Dep't. of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). This indicates that “there is no surety that the violence will not recur,” and DCS need not “wait until a child is physically or emotionally harmed to intervene.” Id.

[11] Even so, Parents’ domestic violence incident was not the only basis for the CHINS determination. The trial court also cited Mother's noncompliance with the Second Adjustment, including her failure to submit to drug testing after a history of methamphetamine use, and her willingness to bring Father back into the home without addressing their domestic violence. We therefore cannot say that the court clearly erred in determining that Sons were seriously endangered.

II. Sons Have Unmet Needs

[12] Next, Mother claims DCS failed to demonstrate that Sons had unmet needs, arguing that they were safe in Mother's care and that Father was not living in the home. But Mother ignores the trial court's finding that, without DCS involvement, there would be no restrictions on Father's access to the home. In fact, Mother testified that she wanted Father to return home while also admitting that she would not leave Sons alone with him. The FCM testified, and the trial court found, that Mother is not an appropriate supervisor for Father's visits with Sons because of Parents’ unresolved domestic violence. Mother does not dispute this finding.

[13] Based on this evidence, we cannot say that the trial court's determination that Sons had unmet needs was clearly erroneous.

III. Court Coercion Is Necessary

[14] Finally, Mother disputes the trial court's conclusion that court coercion is necessary, as she claims she was already participating in some family preservation services. To assess this element, courts “consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580. This avoids “punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them.” Id. at 581.

[15] Mother had more than six months to comply with the Second Adjustment but had not done so by the time of the factfinding hearing. Mother does not dispute her noncompliance but attempts to excuse it. For instance, she claims she did not know the domestic violence assessment was required, though she acknowledges signing the Second Adjustment and engaging in other services required by it. Mother also argues that she did not explicitly refuse the requisite drug screen but merely questioned why it was necessary, which was recorded as a refusal. Both arguments, which were presented to and rejected by the trial court, are invitations to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of Mother's testimony, which we will not do.

[16] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that, by the time of the factfinding hearing, Mother was not compliant with multiple provisions of the Second Adjustment. At that hearing, Mother stated she wanted to bring Father back into the home, despite the threat he posed to Sons’ well-being. The domestic violence between Parents also remained unaddressed. This supports the finding that court coercion is necessary for Sons’ protection. Cf. Id. (finding no court intervention needed where parents cooperated with DCS and “satisfactorily completed all services” before factfinding hearing).

Conclusion

[17] Given the evidence in the record and our deferential standard of review, we cannot say that the trial court's CHINS determinations were clearly erroneous. We affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father does not participate in this appeal.

2.   In challenging the trial court's legal conclusion, Mother suggests that Sons were unaware she and Father were fighting because they were in a different part of the house at the time. Thus, it appears Mother may also contest the trial court's factual finding that Sons were present for Parents’ domestic violence. Determining Sons’ awareness, however, would require us to reweigh the evidence, which is not our role.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges May and Scheele concur. May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.