IN RE: S.K. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.K. (“Father”) and M.G. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the trial court's order finding their child, S.K. (“Child”) to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Parents argue that the evidence is insufficient to find Child is a CHINS. We, however, conclude that the trial court's finding that Child is a CHINS is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issues

[2] Parents raise several issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.

II. Whether the trial court's finding that Child needs care he is not receiving is clearly erroneous.

III. Whether the trial court's finding that coercive intervention by the court is necessary is clearly erroneous.

Facts

[3] The Child was born on February 11, 2024, exposed to methamphetamine. On February 12, 2024, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) met with Parents at the hospital. Parents denied methamphetamine use but admitted to using marijuana. Parents, however, tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, and Father also tested positive for THC.¹ Father claimed that a co-worker must have put methamphetamine into his liquor bottle. At that time, Father had pending charges for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony; possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor; and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor, which had been filed in June 2023.

[4] On February 15, 2024, Parents again tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, and Father also tested positive for THC. On February 16, 2024, Mother entered inpatient substance abuse treatment at Volunteers of America (“VOA”), and Child was able to live at VOA with Mother. On February 21, 2024, Father tested positive for ethanol, amphetamine, and methamphetamine.

[5] On February 21, 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 (neglect) and -10 (child born with controlled substance in the body). DCS alleged that Child was born exposed to methamphetamine; Parents tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana; Parents continued to deny current methamphetamine use; Father had pending criminal charges; and an eviction proceeding against Parents was pending.

[6] On February 22, 2024, Father again tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. The trial court ordered that DCS find “alternative placement for the child” if Mother left VOA before completing the program. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 13. The trial court also ordered that Father would have supervised visitation with Child.

[7] On March 1, 2024, Father tested positive for methamphetamine, and on March 13, 2024, Father's test results were negative for illicit substances, but the test result was inconclusive for THC. DCS filed an amended CHINS petition on March 19, 2024, with updated drug testing results for Father.

[8] In April 2024, Parents requested permission from the trial court for Mother to transition from VOA to a sober living facility and for Parents to reside together at the facility. At that time, Father did not have housing. The trial court granted Parents’ motion.

[9] A fact-finding hearing was held on June 3, 2024. Parents stipulated that Child was “born drug exposed.” Tr. Vol. II p. 49. Family Case Manager Frank Wilkerson (“FCM Wilkerson”) testified about concerns regarding Parents’ housing and sobriety. Parents and the Child were living at a sober living facility, and Parents were required to pay $700 per month in rent. Parents could be removed from the facility for missing a rent payment, poor behavior, and failure to participate in services. Parents had only lived at the sober living facility for two months and could be evicted if they failed to meet the facility's requirements.

[10] Father had two negative drug screens in the beginning of May 2024, and Parents were unemployed. Father was doing odd jobs and maintenance at the sober living facility for rent credits. Parents were participating in some services through the sober living facility, but FCM Wilkerson had not been provided with documentation of the services and drug testing despite requests for the documentation. Parents indicated that they wanted to stay at the sober living facility for as long as they could, find jobs, and “get on their feet.” Id. at 74.

[11] Father testified that he last “[k]nowingly” used methamphetamine in December 2023 and that he did not use methamphetamine in 2024. Id. at 80. Mother testified that Parents had paid rent to the sober living facility through August 1, 2024. Mother was screened for drugs only once through her intensive outpatient program (“IOP”) and she was about to graduate from the IOP.

[12] On July 1, 2024, the trial court found that Child was a CHINS under both Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-10. The trial court entered a dispositional order on August 5, 2024. Parents now appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Parents challenge 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 31-34-1-10. 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.’ ” In re 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.

[14] “[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.

[15] 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. The trial court here found Child to be a CHINS under both Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-10.

[16] Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 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.

[17] Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-10 provides:

Except as provided in sections 12[2] and 13[3] of this chapter, a child is a child in need of services if:

(1) the child is born with:

(A) fetal alcohol syndrome;

(B) neonatal abstinence syndrome; or

(C) any amount, including a trace amount, of a controlled substance, a legend drug, or a metabolite of a controlled substance or legend drug in the child's body, including the child's blood, urine, umbilical cord tissue, or meconium; and

(2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that:

(A) the child is not receiving; or

(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.

[18] Parents admitted at the fact-finding hearing that Child was born with drugs in his body, and Parents do not seem to challenge the finding that Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered. Parents, however, challenge several of the trial court's factual findings. Parents also challenge the trial court's conclusions that Child needs care that he is not receiving and that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary.

I. Challenges to Factual Findings

[19] First, Parents challenge several findings that concern Parents’ drug usage. Parents, however, do not dispute the fact that both Parents tested positive for illegal substances. In fact, the trial court's findings are fully supported by drug test results that were admitted at the fact-finding hearing. Rather, Parents contend that Father's test results demonstrated that he was “fully clean for all substances as of March 13, 2024.” Appellant's Br. p. 20. Father's test results, however, indicated that Father tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana repeatedly during February 2024. On March 1, 2024, Father tested positive for methamphetamine, and on March 13, 2024, Father had an inconclusive test result for THC. The trial court's findings regarding the Parents’ drug test results are not clearly erroneous.

[20] Next, Parents challenge Finding No. 17, in which the trial court found: “Despite the positive drug screens, both Mother and Father continue to deny active methamphetamine use near the time of their positive screens and have not taken accountability for their illegal drug use.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 24. Parents argue they took responsibility and obtained appropriate drug treatment. After Child was born, Parents denied methamphetamine usage, but both tested positive for methamphetamine. At the fact-finding hearing, Father testified that he last “[k]knowingly” used methamphetamine in December 2023 and that he did not use methamphetamine in 2024. Tr. Vol. II p. 80. Father, however, repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine in 2024. The finding is not clearly erroneous.

[21] Parents also challenge Finding No. 19, in which the trial court found: “Mother and Father have not demonstrated an ability to maintain sobriety.” Id. Parents denied using methamphetamine, despite positive drug tests that conflicted with the denials. Parents, allegedly, had only recently stopped using drugs, and DCS had not been provided with documentation of drug tests from Parents’ service providers to confirm Parents’ sobriety. In fact, Mother testified that she was only drug tested one time during her IOP and that she was about to graduate from the program. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not convinced that Parents were sober, and the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous.

[22] Next, Parents challenge Findings No. 20, 21, 22, and 23, which provide:

20) Mother and Father have not provided the child with a safe, stable home free of substance abuse.

21) Mother lived in the Anderson, IN apartment for two months prior to the child's birth, and Mother and Father lost the apartment the month of the child's birth.

22) From shortly after the opening of this case to late April 2024, Father was homeless.

23) Mother and Father have not obtained or maintained a legal, stable source of income.

Id.

[23] Parents contend that they have been maintaining safe and stable housing, but the evidence supports the trial court's findings. Parents were living in an apartment in Anderson when Child was born, and an eviction proceeding had been filed. After Child's birth, Mother and Child lived at VOA and then moved to the sober living facility, and Father became homeless and also moved into the sober living facility. Parents were required to pay $700 per month. Parents were unemployed and paid rent through housing vouchers and income Father received for odd jobs at the sober living facility. Parents were required to maintain sobriety and follow the program rules, and they are subject to removal from the facility at any time. The trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Parents are merely requesting that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475.

[24] Finally, Parents challenge Finding No. 24, which provided: “Under Cause No. 79D02-2306-F4-000027, Father has pending criminal charges for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia.” Id. Again, this finding is supported by the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing.⁴ Parents merely argue about the weight to be given to Father's pending criminal charges.⁵

II. Necessity of Care for Child

[25] Parents challenge the trial court's finding that Child “needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation” that Child is not receiving. Ind. Code §§ 31-34-1-1(2)(A), - 10(2)(A). Parents argue that the Child has remained with Mother, that Mother successfully completed the VOA program, and that Parents are complying with the sober living facility requirements. According to Parents, Child has suffered “no known harms or deprivations[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 13.

[26] The CHINS statute “does not require that a court wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene.” In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In In re D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied, we noted the dangers of methamphetamine:

Methamphetamine is a “highly addictive drug with potent central nervous system ․ stimulant properties.” Methamphetamine causes effects similar to cocaine. But methamphetamine “has a much longer duration of action, and a larger percentage of the drug remains unchanged in the body.” In 2021, approximately 32,500 people died from an overdose involving stimulants other than cocaine—“primarily methamphetamine.” [ ] And most importantly for this discussion, “[p]arents who use, manufacture, and/or traffic methamphetamine in the presence of children put their children at a higher risk of child abuse and neglect.” The 2021 Annual Report of Child Abuse & Neglect Fatalities in Indiana reported methamphetamine was involved in eleven of the sixty child deaths from caregiver maltreatment and noted a history of substance abuse was most frequently cited as a stress factor among caregivers.

Id. at 561-62 (internal citations and footnote omitted).

[27] Here, DCS presented evidence that Child was born exposed to methamphetamine, and Parents continued to test positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Although Mother entered treatment at the VOA, Father continued to test positive for methamphetamine throughout February 2024 and had pending criminal charges for possession of methamphetamine. Mother testified that she had only submitted to one drug test through her IOP. Parents did not have their own housing or sufficient income for independent living. And Parents’ residency at the sober living facility was unstable because they could be removed at any time for violations of the program.

[28] Although we applaud Parents for beginning to address their substance abuse, the record is replete with evidence of Parents’ substance abuse issues, and the trial court was unconvinced that the substance abuse issues had been fully resolved. We find D.P. persuasive here. There, we held:

In sum, unlike S.D. and Ad.M. [v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 103 N.E.3d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018),] this is not a case of a single incident of marijuana use prompting DCS intervention. Nor is this even a case of a single incident of methamphetamine use but nothing more. See In re L.P., 6 N.E.3d 1019, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (reversing a CHINS adjudication where DCS proved a single use of methamphetamine, there was no suggestion the use of methamphetamine took place in the presence of the child, and the parent voluntarily and consistently took drug screens with negative results); Perrine v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Child Servs., 866 N.E.2d 269, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (reversing a CHINS adjudication because “a single admitted use of methamphetamine, outside the presence of the child and without more, is insufficient to support a CHINS determination”) (emphasis added).

D.P., 213 N.E.3d at 562.

[29] Here, Parents’ ability to care for a newborn child, who was born with methamphetamine in his body, is impaired by Parents’ substance abuse and lack of stable housing. Parents’ arguments to the contrary are merely requests to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475. Under these circumstances, the trial court's finding that Child needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that it was not receiving is not clearly erroneous.

III. Necessity of Coercive Intervention

[30] Next, Parents challenge the trial court's conclusion that Child needs care that “is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.” Ind. Code §§ 31-34-1-1(2)(B), -10(2)(B). This “element guards against unwarranted State interference in family life because ‘[n]ot 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.’ ” D.P., 213 N.E.3d at 559 (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287). Courts “should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” Id.

[31] Parents argue that a CHINS adjudication cannot be based solely on conditions that no longer exist; they have addressed their substance abuse; they have stable housing, support, and income; and they have been successfully caring for Child. We note, however, that despite multiple positive drug screens, Father continued to deny that he consumed methamphetamine during 2024. Parents’ housing remained unstable because they could have been removed from the sober living facility at any time due to violations. Further, Parents remained unemployed, with Father performing odd jobs for rent credit at the sober living facility.

[32] Again, Parents’ argument is merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475. The trial court was not convinced that Parents’ substance abuse issues had been fully addressed or that their housing was stable. Under these circumstances, the trial court's finding that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary is not clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

[33] The trial court's finding that Child is a CHINS is not clearly erroneous. We affirm.

[34] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly abbreviated as THC, is the main active chemical in marijuana. Medina v. State, 188 N.E.3d 897, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

2.   Section 12 provides an exception for a mother's good faith use of a legend drug according to a prescription and does not apply here.

3.   Section 13 provides an exception for a mother's good faith use of a controlled substance according to a prescription and does not apply here.

4.   Father later pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony. In February 2025, the trial court sentenced Father to four years with two years executed in the Department of Correction, two years suspended to probation, and the first suspended year served in community corrections. In sentencing Father, the trial court noted the following as aggravating factors: “Defendant's criminal history; he has an active warrant in Oregon; he violated bond in this case by testing positive for drugs; he came to Court with a device to alter his drug screen; he has 6 Failures to Appear; and prior attempts at rehabilitation have failed.” Sentencing Order, Cause No. 79D02-2306-F4-27.

5.   The remaining findings challenged by the Parents concern the need for coercive intervention of the court and citations to Indiana caselaw. We address these conclusions below.

Tavitas, Judge.

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