IN RE: H.R. and W.R. (Minor Children) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] T.R. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's adjudication of two of his children as children in need of services (“CHINS”). Father claims the trial court erred in finding the children to be CHINS because the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to present sufficient evidence to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and E.W. (“Mother”) are the biological parents of W.R. (born in October 2019) and H.R. (born in August 2022) (collectively, “Children”).¹ In mid-July 2024, DCS received a report Parents were using illegal substances and refused to leave Grandmother's home. Due to her limited physical abilities while recovering from a broken back, Grandmother sometimes let Parents care for all four of their biological children in her home. Around the time of the report, Grandmother had asked Parents to leave due to suspected drug use. A day after the initial report, Mother tested positive for fentanyl, amphetamines, and opioids. Mother admitted using fentanyl. Although Father has a history of substance use, he denied using substances and refused to provide a drug screen. DCS removed Children from Parents’ care and filed petitions alleging Children were CHINS. This was not Parents’ first involvement with DCS.

[3] By September, Parents had moved out of Grandmother's home and were living in a shed. Parents could stay at Grandmother's house only if they were not using illegal substances. Parents still refused to submit drug screens.

[4] Following a consolidated fact-finding hearing, the trial court found: Parents refused to submit drug screens; Father has a history of substance abuse; Parents have prior DCS involvement; Parents did not have safe and stable housing; Parents were not safe and sober caregivers for Children; Parents could not ensure the safety and protection of Children; and Parents were unwilling or unable to provide Children with necessary food, clothing, shelter, and supervision. The trial court adjudicated Children CHINS and determined the coercive intervention of the Court was needed to ensure Children received necessary care and treatment.

Standard of review in a CHINS proceeding

[5] In a CHINS proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012); see Ind. Code §§ 31-34-1-1 to -11 (describing circumstances under which a child is a CHINS); I.C. § 31-34-12-3 (1997) (imposing preponderance standard). When reviewing a CHINS adjudication, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–78 (Ind. 2017). Rather, “[w]e consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. We reverse a CHINS determination only if it is clearly erroneous. D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 578. Clear error is “that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Masters v. Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570, 575 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992)).

[6] When, as here, the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte, we review issues covered by the findings with a “two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). We review any issues not covered by the findings under the general judgment standard, meaning we will affirm the judgment if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id. Findings not challenged on appeal must be taken as true. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992).

The CHINS determinations are supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous.

[7] Here, the trial court adjudicated Children as CHINS under the general neglect provision. A child under the age of eighteen is a CHINS under this provision when:

(1) [T]he 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 ․ 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. Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to require proof of “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.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. When determining whether a child is a CHINS under this section, and particularly when determining whether the coercive intervention of the court is necessary, the court “should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” Id. at 1290.

[8] The trial court's unchallenged findings support its decision to adjudicate Children as CHINS. The trial court found both Parents were not sober caregivers and were either unwilling or unable to provide Children with necessary food, clothing, shelter, and supervision. See In re D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (noting it is reasonable to infer a parent is using illicit substances while caring for a child based on positive drug screens before a child was removed), trans. denied. Mother's fentanyl use, in tandem with Parents’ inability to secure stable housing, seriously endangered Children. See In re C.O., No. 22A-JT-2748, at *6 (Ind. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2023) (mem.) (collecting sources describing the dangers and potency of fentanyl), trans. denied. In addition to these considerations, Parents’ persistent refusal to submit drug screens led the trial court to determine the coercive intervention of the court was necessary for Children's needs to be met. See In re N.E., 198 N.E.3d 384, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (noting the same evidence used by a court to determine a parent's conduct endangered a child may also support a conclusion that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary to safeguard the child). The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Parents were likely to need the court's coercive intervention to address their substance use, obtain safe and stable housing, and otherwise provide for Children's care and treatment.

[9] Despite acknowledging Mother's substance use, Father contends we should reverse the CHINS adjudications because the record is devoid of evidence indicating he was using illegal substances.² In so arguing, however, Father overlooks that the conduct of one parent can be enough for a child to be adjudicated a CHINS. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). In other words, a separate analysis for each parent is unnecessary because requiring such would stray from the purpose of a CHINS adjudication: to protect children, not punish parents. S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1285 (reminding that a court's focus in a CHINS case “is on the best interests of the child and whether the child needs help that the parent will not be willing or able to provide—not whether the parent is somehow ‘guilty’ or ‘deserves’ a CHINS adjudication.”). At bottom, Father asks we reweigh evidence and determine for ourselves Parents were not using illicit substances and could provide safe and stable housing for Children—i.e., at Grandmother's house. Even looking past the fact Parents were permitted to stay at Grandmother's only if they were not using illicit substances, our standard of review precludes us from entertaining Father's request. See D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577–78 (explaining we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility on appeal).

Conclusion

[10] The trial court did not clearly err by adjudicating Children as CHINS.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother does not participate in this appeal. Parents also have two other biological children, C.R. and G.R. These two children have been adopted by their paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”). In addition to Children, DCS also alleged C.R. and G.R. were CHINS. The trial court held a consolidated fact-finding hearing on all four petitions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined C.R. and G.R. were not CHINS. This appeal concerns only W.R. and H.R.

2.   We pause to note the trial court found otherwise, inferring based on Father's history of substance use and refusal to submit drug screens that he was not a sober caregiver for Children. Father does not challenge this finding on appeal.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.