IN RE: B.B. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Marion Superior Court adjudicated B.B. (“Child”) a child in need of services (“CHINS”). A.B. (“Father”) appeals, arguing that the trial court's order is not supported by the evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2024, Father and nine-year-old Child lived in paternal grandmother's home. Father had custody of Child. After DCS received a report that Child had allegedly suffered physical abuse, a DCS family case manager met with Child at her school on April 3. The case manager observed a bruise on Child's arm. Two days later, the case manager spoke with Father via telephone and asked to meet with him. In response, Father called the case manager a “stupid b*tch.” Tr. p. 13. Father also informed the case manager that he was on his way to her office and stated that she should “call the cops.” Tr. p. 13.

[4] When Father and Child arrived at the DCS office, the case manager introduced herself and asked Father questions concerning his treatment of Child. Father admitted that he had made statements to Child that hurt her feelings and that he had physically disciplined Child. Id. at 14. Father stated that he had lain on Child to restrain her and admitted that she had suffered bruising as a result. Id. Father stated his intent to continue to use physical discipline with Child. Father also told the case manager that he would not permit DCS to enter his home. Id. at 17. The case manager observed that Child appeared to be uncomfortable and “very scared.” Id. at 18.

[5] Father admitted to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. Id. at 16. And the case manager and her supervisor believed that Father was under the influence of alcohol during his visit to the DCS office. The DCS supervisor instructed Father that he could not properly supervise his child if he were intoxicated. Id. at 33. Father then stormed out of the conference room. The DCS supervisor asked him to be careful because he smelled like alcohol, and Father ran back down the hallway toward her. Id. A security guard placed himself between Father and the DCS supervisor, and Father then began “yelling and cussing.” Id. He also said he would take a breathalyzer. Id. at 34.

[6] The DCS supervisor had concerns for Child's safety due to Father's manner of discipline. Specifically, she feared that Child might stop breathing when Father laid his body on top of hers and/or that Father would become enraged “and not stop.” Tr. p. 37. Father's behavior at the DCS office contributed to the supervisor's concerns. Id. Therefore, DCS substantiated the report of neglect, specifically due to inappropriate discipline.

[7] Child was removed from Father's home and initially placed with her mother.¹ However, Child's mother and her significant other have substance abuse issues, and, thus, Child was eventually placed in kinship care with her teacher.

[8] During DCS's investigation, Father informed DCS that he suffers from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury. At DCS's recommendation, Father participated in a family functional assessment, the purpose of which was to determine the services Father should participate in so that he could be reunified with Child. DCS referred Father to Waco Family Services to participate in Fatherhood Engagement. Father actively participated in this referral. However, Father would not allow the service provider to view his home. Because Father lacks stable income and employment, he lives in his mother's home. Father stated that his mother would not allow the service provider to enter her home.

[9] On May 7, Father had a supervised visit with Child. At the onset of the visit, Father asked Child, “[w]hy do you hate me?” Appellant's App. p. 121. Father then began to discuss the inappropriate discipline that led to Child's removal. The visit supervisor told Father the conversation was not appropriate. Father then walked out of the visit and declined to participate further.

[10] During DCS's investigation, Father told the case manager that his home had bed bugs and roaches.² DCS offered to arrange pest control to treat the infestation. Father told DCS that his mother would not allow anyone inside the home and declined the offer to treat the infestation.

[11] The trial court held the CHINS fact-finding hearing on July 29. The next day the court issued its order adjudicating Child a CHINS. The court issued findings of fact and concluded:

52. [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 father to provide the child with necessary food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, or supervision.

53. [Child] needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that the child is not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the Court.

54. [Father] has not taken sufficient voluntary steps to address the issues which led to the removal of the child and Court intervention is necessary.

55. [Father] used inappropriate physical discipline on his nine[-] year[-]old child which left a bruise. He has repeatedly indicated that he would continue to do so in the future. He has denied access to DCS and the service providers to the family home to determine if the home is appropriate for the child. The house is infested with bed bugs and roaches and [Father] has refused assistance with pest control. [Father] has no means of supporting the child.

Id. at 122. Thereafter, the trial court issued its dispositional order directing Father to participate in reunification services.

[12] Father now appeals the CHINS adjudication.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Father argues that the trial court's order adjudicating the Child a CHINS is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Our standard of review is well settled:

When reviewing a trial court's CHINS determination, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. When a trial court supplements a CHINS judgment with findings of fact and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. We consider, first, whether the evidence supports the findings and, second, whether the findings support the judgment. We will reverse a CHINS determination only if it was clearly erroneous. 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.

Gr. J. v. Ind. Dep't. of Child Servs. (In re D.J.), 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017) (cleaned up).

[14] In J.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (In re S.D.), 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287-88 (Ind. 2014), our Supreme Court explained the three elements required to prove that a child is a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, as alleged in this case:

Not every endangered child is a child in need of services, permitting the State's parens patriae intrusion into the ordinarily private sphere of the family.

Rather, a CHINS adjudication under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 (often called a “CHINS 1,” in reference to the section number) requires 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 full, the statute 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; 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.

I.C. § 31-34-1-1 (2008). That final 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.

(Cleaned up.) Further, the law does not require a court to wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, a child is a CHINS when he or she is endangered by parental action or inaction. Id. The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is not to punish the parents, but to protect the child. In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

[15] Father inappropriately disciplined Child and caused her to suffer a bruise. After doing so, Father stated to multiple individuals that he would continue to discipline his nine-year-old child in the same manner. Moreover, Father lives in his mother's home and denied DCS entry to the home because he stated that his mother would not allow it. Father does not have a stable income or employment, and, therefore, he cannot obtain his own home.³ Father told a case manager that his mother's home has bed bugs and roaches. DCS offered to pay for pest removal services, but Father declined the offer after again stating that his mother would not allow a pest removal company into the home.

[16] Father suffers from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury, and DCS presented evidence that Father has trouble regulating his emotions. Father charged at a DCS case manager when he was present in a DCS office. He frequently yelled at and used profane language toward service providers and did so in the presence of Child. During Father's first supervised visit with Child, he would not refrain from speaking to Child about the issues surrounding the DCS investigation and he left the visitation.

[17] DCS presented sufficient evidence that Father lacks a proper understanding of appropriate discipline of Child, and that Father injured her while physically restraining her and lying on top of her on the ground. This is particularly concerning due to Father's inability to regulate his emotions, as well as the service providers’ observations that Child appeared nervous around Father and upset by his behavior. Father has also expressed his belief that his mental health does not affect his parenting. Moreover, DCS was unable to evaluate Father's and Child's residence because they were denied entry, and their inability to view the Child's living conditions is particularly important in this case because of Father's admission that there were bed bugs and roaches in the home.

[18] From this evidence, the trial court reasonably concluded that Child is seriously endangered due to Father's inability to provide Child with necessary shelter and supervision,⁴ that Child needs care that she is not receiving, and that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary to protect Child.

Conclusion

[19] DCS proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Child is a CHINS. Father's arguments to the contrary are merely requests to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We therefore affirm the trial court's order adjudicating Child a CHINS.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother waived a fact-finding hearing to establish whether Child is a CHINS and she does not participate in this appeal.

2.   The trial court used the term “infested” when describing the home. While we agree with Father that there was no specific evidence of “infestation,” the fact remains that Father admitted there were bed bugs and roaches in the home, and he rejected DCS's offer to treat the home.

3.   Father disputes the evidence supporting the trial court's finding that he lacked a stable income. But his argument in this regard is merely a request to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do.

4.   We agree with Father that the evidence presented established that Child is appropriately clothed and fed. DCS presented evidence that there was one incident when Child arrived at school and smelled like urine, but the evidence does not establish that Child's hygiene was an ongoing issue.

Mathias, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.