IN RE: D.J.I. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.I. (“Father”), E.R. (“Mother”), and C.R. (“Stepfather”) appeal the trial court's determination that their child is a child in need of services (CHINS), arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and Father are the biological parents of D.J.I. (“Child”), born in June 2010. The Department of Child Services (DCS) first became involved with the family when Child was two months old. In August 2010, DCS filed a petition alleging Child was a CHINS because Mother and Father weren't providing appropriate care or supervision. Mother and Father successfully participated in an informal adjustment, and the CHINS case was closed in January 2011. Later that year, Mother and Father divorced. Mother later married Stepfather.

[3] In 2016, Father pled guilty to Level 3 felony child molesting and was sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction and three years on probation. While on probation, Father pled guilty to Level 6 felony failure to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to an additional year of incarceration. He was released in March 2024, and as a condition of his release, he cannot have contact with anyone under sixteen, including Child. Father hasn't seen Child in person since June 2015 and hasn't talked to Child since March 2022.

[4] Dr. Matthew Hess has been Child's primary-care physician since Child was five years old. When he first saw Child in December 2015, Dr. Hess put him on medications for ADHD and impulse control and recommended counseling for his behavioral problems. In June 2016, Dr. Hess referred Child for counseling at the Bowen Center, but Mother and Stepfather “declined” because “they had a previous child protective services [sic] brought against them by Bowen Center so they didn't want to go back there.” Tr. pp. 40, 41. Dr. Hess recommended counseling at the Bowen Center again in December 2018.

[5] Over the next few years, Child saw Dr. Hess several times a year to follow up on his ADHD, behavioral problems, and medications. During an appointment in June 2020, Mother and Stepfather told Dr. Hess they couldn't afford counseling for Child, so Dr. Hess “discussed trying to get the IEP from school” to see if Child “would qualify for ․ the Medicaid waiver so he could some [sic] counseling that way.” Id. at 42. Mother and Stepfather took Child to a psychologist Dr. Hess recommended, but after three sessions, they chose not to proceed with counseling even though it was recommended that Child continue. In August 2021, Dr. Hess stopped Child's ADHD medication but continued him on the medication for impulse control, and Mother and Stepfather told Dr. Hess “they were working with the school to get an IEP in place at that time.” Id. at 44. At that appointment, Child, then eleven, weighed 64 pounds. Mother and Stepfather didn't take Child to see Dr. Hess again until September 2023, despite medication reviews being required every six months.

[6] In August 2023, DCS received a report that Mother and Stepfather were withholding food from Child. The complainant reported that Child “sent an email to a teacher stating his stomach is turning and he has constant stomach aches because his parents feed him the bare minimum.” Ex. Vol. I p. 54. A family case manager (FCM) visited the family's home to follow up on the allegations, and Child “appeared tiny for his age.” Id. at 55. DCS submitted a Pediatric Evaluation and Diagnostic Service (PEDS) referral, and “PEDS recommended [Child] have a wellness check specifically a weight check.” Id. Mother and Stepfather took Child to see Dr. Hess on September 8. Child, then thirteen, weighed 59 pounds. Mother and Stepfather were concerned about Child's size, but Dr. Hess “reassured them that he's been on the same growth chart since birth.” Tr. p. 44.

[7] DCS referred Child for an evaluation with Dr. Thomas GiaQuinta, a pediatrician who specializes in child abuse and neglect. At an appointment with Dr. GiaQuinta on September 20, Child weighed 62 pounds, which was below the first percentile in weight for his age. Dr. GiaQuinta noticed lanugo on Child's back, which is “a very fine hair growth pattern” typically seen “on children that are severely malnourished” as “a last ditch effort for their body to basically keep themselves warm and conserve energy.” Id. at 83. Stepfather told Dr. GiaQuinta that “withholding food like a meal is a punishment strategy that they use,” albeit “not something that they used repeatedly.” Id. at 80. Dr. GiaQuinta diagnosed Child with failure to thrive and concluded “this was a case of physical neglect due to failure to provide adequate food to grow and be healthy.” Id. at 84. DCS also provided Child's medical records to Dr. Tonya Holloren, another pediatrician specializing in child abuse. Dr. Holloren concluded that Child exhibited signs of physical abuse and that his condition was caused by “severe calorie restriction or deprivation.” Id. at 21.

[8] On October 16, DCS filed a petition alleging Child is a CHINS. Less than two weeks later, on October 25, DCS removed Child from Mother and Stepfather and placed him in foster care. During a child-and-family team meeting (CFTM) on October 27, Mother and Stepfather “were both insistent that they hadn't done anything wrong” and that there were “no issues with how they were disciplining [Child].” Id. at 170. At later CFTMs, Mother and Stepfather maintained they'd done nothing wrong, DCS didn't need to be involved, and “their parenting was just fine.” Id. at 171. During one CFTM, when discussing Child's diagnoses, Mother and Stepfather remarked that diagnoses “are put on the kids” to “get them hooked on medication.” Id.

[9] Father, Mother, and Stepfather participated in a dependency mediation in November, but it failed. That same month, on November 10, Child had another appointment with Dr. GiaQuinta. This time, Child weighed 77 pounds, the lanugo was no longer present, and Child was “notably happier” and “a much different child.” Id. at 83. In December, Child was placed in a different foster home, where he has since remained. Mother and Stepfather have two hours of supervised visitation with Child once a week. DCS offered them another day of visitation during the week, but they declined because “they didn't have the availability for that.” Id. at 166. Mother and Stepfather also rejected DCS's offer of doing a second day of visitation on Saturdays because “that is the time for them to spend time together as a married couple.” Id. Child's foster mother often “ha[s] to make sure he has a real meal when he comes back from visitation because he'll say he didn't eat much.” Id. at 102.

[10] Later in December, Child had a medication evaluation and was prescribed medication for his ADHD again. Father agreed to Child taking the medication, but Mother and Stepfather objected, so DCS had to get a court order for it. DCS also referred Mother, Stepfather, and Child for family therapy, which they began with Rachel Hartman in February 2024.

[11] The fact-finding hearing was held over several days in May and July. Dr. Holloren testified as an expert. Father's counsel asked Dr. Holloren whether having information about Child's genetic history—specifically that Father is four feet and eleven inches tall and has a history of being underweight—would have impacted her evaluation. She explained that it wouldn't have because “[t]here's not a genetic explanation for losing weight from 11 to 13,” and “[e]ven with genetic short statu[r]e in the family kids should continue to grow.” Id. at 31. Similarly, Dr. GiaQuinta opined that Father's growth history “would not have impacted [his] assessment” because “for any healthy child, even if they're small ․ , it is not normal to lose 5 pounds over two (2) years ․ regardless of what your genetics tell you you're supposed to grow as.” Id. at 93-94. Dr. GiaQuinta testified that he was “unable to discern” whether the fifteen pounds Child gained between his appointments on September 20 and November 10 were gained while in Mother's and Stepfather's care or in foster care. Id. at 91. Dr. Hess testified about his appointments with Child and his interactions with Mother and Stepfather. When asked if he “recall[ed] ever receiving the IEP” for Child, Dr. Hess answered that he “could not find it in [his] charts.” Id. at 42.

[12] Visitation supervisor Rashida Bejja recommended parenting education and diagnostic evaluations for Mother and Stepfather “to try to understand their behaviors” toward Child. Id. at 71. Along the same lines, FCM Jacqueline Justice testified that the court's intervention is necessary because Mother and Stepfather would benefit from recommended services but “have said that they will not do them unless they are court ordered.” Id. at 171. FCM Justice also opined that Child would benefit from more visitation. Hartman testified that family therapy was “a positive experience overall” and that she didn't think the family still needed it. Id. at 151. But she acknowledged that while they “did talk about” Mother's and Father's discipline of Child, “it wasn't a very ․ in-depth talk” and they “didn't dig really, really deep into that.” Id. at 153.

[13] Father testified that he isn't concerned about Child being in Mother's and Stepfather's care or about Child's weight loss and that he doesn't feel Child is being abused. Stepfather testified that there was “no need” for DCS's or the court's intervention, he “do[es] not think that counseling is the answer” for Child, and he doesn't believe family therapy is necessary. Id. at 191, 196. Mother did not testify.

[14] In August, the trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. Later that month, the court held a dispositional hearing and issued an order setting forth various requirements for the parents.

[15] Father, Mother, and Stepfather now separately appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[16] Father, Mother, and Stepfather contend the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's determination that Child is a CHINS. We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only upon a showing that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). When the court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review: first, we determine “whether the evidence supports the findings,” and then we determine “whether the findings support the judgment.” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). We consider only the evidence that supports the court's decision and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. at 577-78.

I. The error in one of the trial court's findings of fact does not warrant reversal

[17] Mother contends several of the trial court's findings of fact are unsupported by the evidence.¹ We will not set aside the court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. In re N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Findings are clearly erroneous when there are no facts in the record to support them. Id.

[18] Mother first challenges the following portion of Finding K: “Hess further recommended that Mother and [Stepfather] pursue an Individual Education Plan for [Child]. However, there is no evidence Mother and [Stepfather] did so.” Mother's App. Vol. II p. 10. At Child's appointment in June 2020, Mother, Stepfather, and Dr. Hess “discussed trying to get the IEP from school” to see if Child could get counseling through a Medicaid waiver. Even if we interpret this discussion as Dr. Hess recommending that Mother and Stepfather pursue an IEP for Child, we cannot say there is no evidence Mother and Stepfather did so. Dr. Hess testified that in August 2021, Mother and Stepfather told him “they were working with the school to get an IEP in place at that time.” And when asked if he “recall[ed] ever receiving the IEP” for Child, Dr. Hess answered that he “could not find it in [his] charts.” We agree with Mother that whether Child had an IEP is unclear from the record. Based on this testimony, the trial court erred in finding that there is no evidence Mother and Stepfather pursued an IEP for Child. But even though this part of Finding K is erroneous, such error does not warrant reversal because, as explained further below, the rest of this finding and the unchallenged findings support the trial court's CHINS determination. See In re D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (“Superfluous findings, even if erroneous, cannot provide a basis for reversible error.”), trans. denied.

[19] Mother also challenges Findings S, T, Y, and Z, which state, in relevant part:

S․ The Court finds and concludes that during the course of services and leading up to the removal of the child in October 2023 from Mother and [Stepfather], both Bej[j]a of Quality Counseling and case manager, Jaqueline Justice were concerned that there is not [a] change of attitude or acceptance by [Mother and Stepfather] that there are parenting issues to address.

T. The Court concludes that the parents have never abandoned their belief that withholding food is appropriate discipline. Rather, they have attempted to draw the focus to the behaviors of the child․

Y․ Whether [Child] gained weight from September to October 2023 under the care of [Mother and Stepfather] while also under the watchful eye of the State of Indiana, does not resolve[ ] the need for the intervention of the Court given the lack of insight of [Mother and Stepfather] into their dangerous parenting practices․

Z․ [Child] also requires care, nutrition and protection from the neglect by his parents. Further, [Father, Mother, and Stepfather] require intensive services that include but are not limited to: mental health and parenting assessments, individual therapy for all parties, family therapy when or if recommended by the child's individual therapist, parenting assessments and classes, and other services recommended by providers as well as supervised visitation.

Mother's App. Vol. II pp. 11-12. Mother argues these findings are unsupported by the evidence because “[n]o testimony was given that the parents still believe that withholding food is appropriate discipline.” Mother's Br. p. 12. We disagree. FCM Justice testified that throughout the CFTMs, Mother and Stepfather insisted they'd done nothing wrong and there were no issues with their parenting or discipline of Child. Stepfather maintained this attitude at the fact-finding hearing—he testified that there was no need for intervention by DCS or the court and that he doesn't think family therapy or counseling for Child are necessary. Additionally, Bejja recommended parenting education and diagnostic evaluations for Mother and Stepfather “to try to understand their behaviors” toward Child, and FCM Justice also testified that Mother and Stepfather would benefit from more services. And Hartman acknowledged that they didn't dig “deep into” Mother's and Stepfather's discipline of Child during family therapy. This evidence supports Findings S, T, Y, and Z.

II. The trial court's CHINS adjudication was not clearly erroneous

[20] Father, Mother, and Stepfather each contend there is insufficient evidence to establish the statutory requirements for a CHINS adjudication. DCS alleged Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, which 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.

An adjudication under this statute “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 re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied.

[21] There is sufficient evidence that Father's, Mother's, and Stepfather's actions and inactions have seriously endangered Child. DCS became involved with the family in August 2023 after receiving a report that Mother and Stepfather were withholding food from Child. At that time, Child “appeared tiny for his age.” On September 8, Child, then thirteen, weighed 59 pounds, five pounds less than he weighed two years earlier. At his appointment with Dr. GiaQuinta on September 20, Child weighed 62 pounds—below the first percentile in weight for his age—and Dr. GiaQuinta found lanugo on his back. Stepfather admitted at the appointment that he and Mother withheld food from Child as a punishment strategy, but not repeatedly. Dr. GiaQuinta diagnosed Child with failure to thrive and determined he was a victim of physical neglect, specifically a lack of adequate food. Dr. Holloren similarly concluded that Child exhibited signs of physical abuse and that his condition was caused by severe calorie restriction. And Father is unable to provide any care for Child—he has convictions for child molesting and failure to register as a sex offender and can't have contact with anyone under sixteen, so he hasn't seen Child in person since June 2015 or talked to Child since March 2022.

[22] Father denies that any of the parents neglected or abused Child and describes Child's weight loss as a hereditary problem based on his own short stature and alleged similar pattern of weight loss as a teenager. But both Dr. Holloren and Dr. GiaQuinta debunked this theory. Dr. Holloren testified that “[t]here's not a genetic explanation for losing weight from 11 to 13” and that even with short stature in the family, kids should continue to grow. Dr. GiaQuinta testified that even if a child is small, “it is not normal to lose 5 pounds over two (2) years,” regardless of genetics. And as the trial court concluded, “although [Father] may have medical issues or otherwise that have caused him to have a small stature, it is not dispositive for [Child] given his ability to grow when given proper nutrition and supervision.” Father's App. Vol. II pp. 23-24.

[23] The evidence also establishes that Child's needs are unmet and are unlikely to be met without State coercion. Dr. Hess recommended counseling for Child several times before Mother and Stepfather finally took Child to a psychologist. After three sessions, Mother and Stepfather chose not to continue counseling despite recommendations that Child do so. Although reviews for Child's ADHD and impulse-control medications are required every six months, Mother and Stepfather didn't take Child to see Dr. Hess from August 2021 until September 2023. Once Child was in foster care, DCS had to get a court order for Child to get his ADHD medication because Mother and Stepfather objected to the medication. During a CFTM, Mother and Stepfather stated that diagnoses “are put on the kids” to “get them hooked on medication.” And as noted above, Mother and Stepfather also insisted at the CFTMs that they'd done nothing wrong, that there weren't issues with their parenting or their discipline of Child, and that DCS didn't need to be involved. Further, FCM Justice opined that Child would benefit from more visitation with Mother and Stepfather, but Mother and Stepfather refused DCS's offers of additional visitation time because they didn't have availability during the week and Saturdays are “the time for them to spend time together as a married couple.”

[24] The parents each argue that the reasons for DCS's involvement were resolved by the time of the fact-finding hearing, but we cannot agree. Child's foster mother testified that she often “ha[s] to make sure he has a real meal when he comes back from visitation because he'll say he didn't eat much.” Bejja recommended parenting education and diagnostic evaluations for Mother and Stepfather to try to understand their behaviors toward Child, and FCM Justice testified that Mother and Stepfather would benefit from recommended services that they refused to do unless the court orders them. Although Hartman testified that family therapy was a positive experience and she didn't think it was still needed, she acknowledged that they didn't “dig” into Mother's and Stepfather's discipline of Child. To this point, the trial court “d[id] not find it credible that [Mother and Stepfather] have benefitted from family therapy” and concluded, “The fact [that Mother and Stepfather] were starving their son has to be the focus of their therapy and services.” Father's App. Vol. II p. 23.

[25] Although Child gained fifteen pounds between his appointments with Dr. GiaQuinta on September 20 and November 10, this weight gain occurred after DCS became involved with the family. Each parent claims that, based on the timing of Child's appointments, he likely gained the majority of the weight while in Mother's and Stepfather's care. See Father's Br. p. 13; Mother's Br. p. 12; Stepfather's Br. p. 18. But this is speculative. Dr. GiaQuinta, who evaluated Child both before and after his removal and reviewed all of his medical records, was “unable to discern” whether Child gained weight while in Mother's and Stepfather's care or in foster care. And as the trial court aptly noted, “Whether [Child] gained weight ․ under the care of [Mother and Stepfather] while also under the watchful eye of the State of Indiana, does not resolve[ ] the need for the intervention of the Court given the lack of insight of [Mother and Stepfather] into their dangerous parenting practices.” This lack of insight was apparent in Stepfather's testimony, when he asserted that there was no need for DCS's or the court's intervention, he doesn't think counseling “is the answer” for Child, and he doesn't believe family therapy is necessary. The trial court also observed that Father has “not condemned the practice of withholding food from the child,” Father's App. Vol. II p. 24, as evidenced by Father's testimony that he has no concerns about Child being in Mother's and Stepfather's care or about Child's weight loss and doesn't think Child is being abused.

[26] The parents have not shown that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.

[27] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Stepfather purports to challenge several of the trial court's findings of fact, see Stepfather's Br. pp. 12-15, but these are really challenges to the trial court's conclusions, which we address in the next section. Father does not raise any specific challenges to the court's findings.

Vaidik, Judge.

Judges Bailey and DeBoer concur. Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.