S.B., Appellant-Respondent v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] S.B. (Mother) appeals the trial court's adjudication of her infant daughter Q.B. (Child) as a child in need of services (CHINS).¹ Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Child was born to Mother and Father on May 6, 2024. Shortly before Child's birth, Mother began a relationship with D.B. (Stepfather) and moved into his home in Rochester, Indiana, where he lived with his mother and autistic brother. Mother and Stepfather married on September 25, 2024.

[4] Child was healthy at birth, weighing six pounds, seven ounces. Upon her release from the hospital on May 8, she lived with Mother and Stepfather. By May 15, Child's pediatrician, Dr. Jerrod Feldman, became concerned about Child's “very poor” weight gain. Exhibit Vol. at 27. Between May 9 and May 15, Child had dropped from the twelfth percentile in weight to the seventh percentile. Dr. Feldman provided Mother and Stepfather with patient education on how to feed Child and with forms they should use to track feedings and other relevant information.

[5] At the weight check on May 22, Mother did not bring the feeding records to Dr. Feldman as directed, and Child was still not gaining sufficient weight and had dropped to the fourth percentile. Dr. Feldman provided Mother and Stepfather with additional parenting education and “stressed” that Child needed to be fed every two to three hours and that records should be kept. Id. at 24.

[6] On June 5, Dr. Feldman noted some slow improvement in Child's weight gain. When Mother indicated that Child was not feeding well due to illness, Dr. Feldman attempted to feed Child. He noted that Child “had a good strong suck on the bottle and was very interested.” Id. at 21. But nothing came out of the bottle because Mother had provided a defective bottle. Mother explained that she had lost the valve.

[7] By July 3, Child's weight had dropped to the second percentile. Child was crying and “clearly hungry” at the appointment, but Mother told Dr. Feldman that she had left the bottle in the car. Id. at 17. Dr. Feldman noted in his records: “I still suspect that family is uncertain of the number of feedings or the volume of feedings because they always recite the exact same numbers as to how much the baby eats.” Id. Dr. Feldman instructed Mother on the recipe for mixing a higher calorie formula.

[8] Despite regular weight checks and instructions from Dr. Feldman, Child's weight gain remained poor. On July 31, Child was in the first percentile for weight, and Dr. Felman diagnosed her with failure to thrive and admitted her to the hospital. He noted: “In 14 days baby has only gained half an ounce. In 28 days the baby [has] only gained 10 oz. Despite being on 24 calorie/ounce for most recent 2 weeks and has not gone well.” Id. at 12.

[9] Within the first two days of admission to the hospital, Child gained eleven ounces without any special diet or medication. Testing did not reveal any underlying medical cause for her poor weight gain while in Mother's care.

[10] While in the hospital with Child, nursing staff attempted to work with Mother and Stepfather to ensure proper feeding and care. Mother and Stepfather were instructed that it was their responsibility to care for Child throughout the night and that the staff was only there to provide guidance and support. Despite these instructions, the nurses documented multiple concerning observations.

[11] Just after midnight on August 1, Mother and Stepfather began relying on the staff to care for Child while they slept. As summarized by the trial court, the nursing notes provide:

00:15: Parents put call light on and state[ ] they are tired and want baby to be taken to the desk. Then when Shana RN went in room to clarify they changed their mind and decided to leave baby in room.

00:35: Parents decided to have baby come to nurse station. Baby in bassinet awake. Staff holding baby.

1:00: Baby acting hungry, staff holding baby and fed her bottle. She drank 75 ml burped well and no spit up. While staff holding baby at nurse station, dad up in hall and then visited with family ․ for a few minutes. While the baby is in nurse station being held by staff.

1:35: Parents requested baby be brought back to room. Baby taken back to room.

3:00: Parents on call light asking for staff to come and take the baby. Upon entering room mom holding and baby crying mom states she is probably hungry and just sat in bed. Tech took baby and changed diaper. Staff made bottle. Parents both just stayed in bed. Tech sat in room and fed baby she took 100 ml and burped and spit up 2 times. Held until fell asleep then placed in bassinet. Parents remained in bed.

5:16: family called RN into room, pt laying in crib fussing. This RN picked up patient and rocked back to sleep and given pacifier. Parents laying in bed sleeping.

7:20: Parents both sleeping, patient in bassinette fussing. Woke mother and stated someone needed to wake up and make patient a bottle because she needs to eat every 3 hours. Mother asked male to make bottle. This RN changed pt diaper. Male made bottle correctly and states he will feed pt. Educated to please leave bottle so we can count how much she drank.

8:22: spent time in room educating on eating every 3 hours during the day no matter if she is sleeping or not.

Appendix at 95-96. Throughout the rest of the day, staff had to prompt Mother and Stepfather more than once to feed Child. When Mother asked if she could bring her Xbox into the room, she was informed that she could not and that she should be focusing on Child's health and nutrition. Additionally, that evening Mother and Stepfather provided the nurse with “conflicting information” about feedings that had been unwitnessed by staff. Id. at 97.

[12] During the second overnight, Mother and Stepfather again relied on staff to care for Child while they slept, as reflected in the nursing notes:

00:54: [Child] was brought out to the nurse's station at 00:45. [Mother] and [Stepfather] were both sound asleep in bed. This RN stated both of their names several times getting increasingly louder with each attempt․ [Child's] diaper had not been changed since 1830, despite gentle reminders from this RN.

00:55: ․ Last diaper change was more than 6 hours ago. Diaper changed by RN at 0050․

1:25: This RN suggested a cell phone alarm be set at 3-4 hour intervals for [Child's] feeding schedules. At 0100 cell phone alarm started ringing and is still alarming 25 minutes later. [Mother] and [Stepfather] both asleep, alarm is still sounding. [Child] is at nurses’ station with RN and consumed 6 ounces ․

3:31: [Child] is very active after second feeding by this RN. Baby is moving all extremities vigorously and would cry loudly when bottle was removed for burping․

7:28: This writer went into patient room and woke parents up to feed infant. [Stepfather] woke up and made bottle while this writer changed diaper. [Mother] continued to lay in bed with blanket over her face.

Id. at 97-98.

[13] When Dr. Feldman rounded that morning, on August 2, he mentioned to Mother and Stepfather that he was going to have someone from the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) come speak with them. According to Dr. Feldman, this step was “typical” in situations where a baby was “being inadequately fed” so that the family could receive services. Transcript at 36. After Dr. Feldman left the room, Mother and Stepfather attempted to take Child out of the hospital against medical advice. Stepfather also threatened to sue the hospital.

[14] That same morning, family case manager (FCM) Bailey Johnson came to the hospital to investigate a report alleging that Child was the subject of abuse and/or neglect. Mother and Stepfather refused to speak with FCM Johnson. And after speaking with Dr. Feldman and various hospital personnel, she took Child into DCS custody and placed her in the care of her maternal grandmother (Grandmother) later that day. Grandmother had been the guardian of Child's older brother (Brother) since Brother's infancy.

[15] On August 5, 2024, DCS filed the instant CHINS petition. DCS alleged that Child had failed to thrive until being hospitalized and that Mother and Stepfather did not respond to Child's needs while in the hospital and tried to remove her against medical advice.

[16] After the initial hearing on August 6, Mother made a disclosure of domestic violence to FCM Johnson. With FCM Johnson's assistance, Mother entered a domestic violence shelter, but Mother returned to Stepfather that same day.

[17] Between August 2 and the CHINS factfinding hearing on October 7, 2024, Mother had one supervised visit with Child at the DCS office. The visit lasted only about twenty minutes, as Mother cut it short saying she had another appointment. Otherwise, Mother did not cooperate with two different referrals for supervised visits. Mother also did not attend any of Child's medical appointments during this time. Further, at a team meeting, Mother initially agreed to referrals for a psychological evaluation and a parenting assessment, but after leaving the meeting, she indicated that she would not participate in these services. Mother claimed that she already had a longtime therapist and had been participating in parenting classes through Bella Vita since before Child's birth.

[18] At the factfinding hearing, Dr. Feldman testified regarding Child's failure to thrive in Mother's care and that if this trajectory continued it would result in delayed developmental skills and impaired growth and brain development. Further, Grandmother's testimony revealed that Mother had refused to care for Brother after his birth and ultimately moved out of Grandmother's home to live with Father, leaving Brother behind. Mother acknowledged a history of domestic violence with Father and Stepfather, but she claimed that Stepfather “stopped everything” after they married on September 25, about two weeks before the hearing. Id. at 64.

[19] FCM Alysa Hefner testified regarding several ongoing concerns. Mother had not taken advantage of services being offered by DCS, including parenting education, supervised visitation, and therapy. FCM Hefner did not believe the therapy and parenting education Mother said she had been receiving on her own were sufficient.² Further, based on witnessing an interaction between Mother and Child in the DCS office, FCM Hefner noted that Mother did not appear to have any type of bond with or attachment to Child. Further, FCM Hefner described her interactions with Stepfather, including that he tends to speak over or for Mother and that most of the time he is “very hostile and threatening” during conversations. Id. at 137. FCM Hefner expressed concerns about domestic violence in the home and Stepfather's demands that Mother not cooperate with DCS or engage in services.

[20] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On October 11, the court issued its order adjudicating child a CHINS. In its order, the court outlined Child's medical history through the time of removal and then made additional findings, including:

12. Failure to thrive is a serious diagnosis that may cause lifelong issues for a child in terms of development and, if unchecked, can have fatal results.

13. [Mother] and [Stepfather] failed to respond to the child's needs when the child was in their care at home and while in the hospital.

14. The family attempted to remove the child from the hospital against medical advice after DCS began its investigation. [Mother] testified that they planned to take the child to another hospital.

***

16. [Mother's] other child is in the maternal grandmother's care under a guardianship established in 2023. When asked by counsel the reason for the guardianship, the maternal grandmother testified: “Well, uh when my grandson was born, [Mother] didn't want to take care of him. She wouldn't feed him, change him, or anything. I mean I tried to get her to be involved and do stuff with him, but she didn't want to.” [Mother's] neglect of her older child is consistent with the facts related to [Child], and supports the observation of the medical providers.

17. After the detention hearing on August 6, 2024, [Mother] advised DCS that [Stepfather] was abusing her. As a result of this disclosure, DCS assisted [her] move to a shelter for abused women.

18. Subsequently, [Mother] and [Stepfather] married and currently reside together. The Court, therefore, has additional concerns about domestic violence in the home.

19. The coercive intervention of the Court is necessary to ensure that the child receives necessary services to address concerns for her safety and well-being.

***

25. The Court observes that [Mother] is a young mother[3] that suffers from depression. [She] has taken some action to address parenting skills, and the Court commends her for seeking help. The Court is hopeful that intervention and services will remedy these issues.

Appendix at 98-100.

[21] The trial court held a dispositional hearing on October 24, 2024, and ordered Mother to, among other things, complete a parenting assessment and a psychological evaluation and follow any resulting recommendations, attend scheduled visits with Child, participate in individual counseling, participate in home-based case management, ensure Child receives monthly weight checks at her pediatrician's office, and complete any recommended domestic violence assessments or programs.

[22] Mother now appeals the CHINS determination. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[23] We will reverse a CHINS determination only if the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. In re R.L., 144 N.E.3d 686, 689 (Ind. 2020). “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.” Id. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. And we will accept as true any specific findings of fact that are not challenged on appeal. See R.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 203 N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[24] Further, in family law matters, we grant latitude and deference to trial courts in recognition of the trial court's unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony. In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556, 561-62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

Discussion & Decision

[25] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action that requires DCS to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). Here, DCS alleged the most common statutory circumstance for a CHINS adjudication, Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1,⁴ which has “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 re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014).

[26] The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect the children, not punish the parents. K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1255. The focus of a CHINS proceeding is on “the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or innocence as in a criminal proceeding.” Id. (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010)). And the CHINS statutes do not require a court to wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene; rather, a child is a CHINS when he or she is endangered by parental action or inaction that is unlikely to be remedied without coercive intervention by the court. See In re C.K., 70 N.E.3d 359, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[27] When determining CHINS status, 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 to avoid punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580-81 (Ind. 2017). 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.’ ” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287 (quoting Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526, 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)).

[28] Mother's only argument on appeal is that the State failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Child's needs were unlikely to be met without coercive intervention. In other words, Mother does not dispute that her actions or inactions seriously endangered Child or that Child's needs were being unmet before DCS took Child into custody. She simply argues that she was ready for Child to return home at the time of the factfinding hearing because she had “a support network available to assist her” and she had “voluntarily and actively engaged in services without coercive intervention from the court.” Appellant's Brief at 12. She also blames DCS for some of the issues relating to exercising parenting time after Child's removal from her care.

[29] We reject Mother's invitation to reweigh the evidence. As found by the trial court, even after Child was diagnosed with failure to thrive, Mother continued to fail to respond to Child's needs while in the hospital, as documented by hospital staff. Child quickly gained weight in the hospital, but this was not due to Mother's attentiveness. Rather hospital staff kept Child on a regular feeding schedule, often feeding Child while Mother slept or having to prompt Mother or Stepfather to feed Child.

[30] After medical providers filed a report of neglect, Mother (and Stepfather) attempted to remove Child from the hospital against medical advice, refused to cooperate with the DCS investigation, and threatened to sue the hospital. This resulted in Child's removal from her care. Then over the next two months, Mother did not engage in services offered by DCS, take advantage of two separate referrals for supervised visits with Child, or attend Child's medical appointments. Mother offered many excuses for these failures, but the trial court was not required to credit her testimony. Further, as recognized by the trial court, Mother's actions were consistent with her past neglect of Brother, with whom she chose to have little contact and refused to care for as an infant.

[31] While there was some indication that Mother had engaged in parenting classes on her own, the evidence in this regard was sketchy. And the classes, which she claimed to have also taken while pregnant with both children, had not kept Child from being seriously neglected in her care. Mother clearly needed new and different parenting education, which DCS sought to provide but she refused. Further, Mother claims that she has a “live-in support network” at home, but she lived with these same individuals during the period of neglect. Id. at 20. Before Child can be safely returned to this environment, Mother needs to engage in various services to address issues related to parenting, mental health, and domestic violence.

[32] Under the circumstances, the trial court's determination that Child's needs are unlikely to be met without court intervention was not clearly erroneous. See Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 477 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (“DCS demonstrated Parents’ persistent and adamant refusal to participate in services except for supervised visits with the children despite Parents’ clear need for such services.”). Thus, we affirm Child's adjudication as a CHINS.

[33] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   M.N. (Father) admitted that Child was a CHINS and thus does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Mother provided no documentation to DCS to support her claim of attending ongoing therapy and parenting classes since Child's removal.

3.   Mother was twenty-one years old when she gave birth to Child.

4.   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:(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.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.