IN RE: M.M. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] C.M. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's determination that her 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 N.M. (“Father”) are the parents of M.M. (“Child”), born in March 2023. Father does not participate in this appeal. Mother has a long history of involvement with the Department of Child Services (DCS), beginning in 2018. At that time, Mother had three children with the same father, B.S. DCS filed a CHINS petition alleging neglect and removed the children. Mother and B.S. participated in an informal adjustment, but it was unsuccessful. DCS filed another CHINS petition in 2019 but dismissed it later that year. Then in February 2022, DCS placed the children with B.S. “after questions about [M]other's stability in a home were raised.” Ex. 7. In the meantime, Mother had a fourth child in 2020 (with another father), over whom Mother's grandparents currently have guardianship.

[3] In April 2024, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Whitney Wells responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at Father's home. When Officer Wells arrived, Mother, Father, and Child were in a shed behind the home. Mother and Father were arguing, and Child was lying on a bed inside the shed. Mother told Officer Wells she and Child had slept in the shed the night before because “it was either the shed or ․ a hotel room,” but both Mother and Father insisted that Mother didn't live in the shed; she was just there visiting Father. Tr. p. 24. At the time, Father had an active warrant, so Officer Wells arrested him. While searching Father incident to his arrest, Officer Wells found burnt foil, and Father admitted he is a drug user.

[4] Following the domestic disturbance, DCS received a report alleging domestic violence and substance use. Though DCS was supposed to initiate its assessment within 24 hours given the nature of the report, DCS wasn't able to see Child until a month later because Mother provided incorrect addresses. At the address Mother gave Officer Wells, DCS was told Mother didn't live there. Assessment Family Case Manager (FCM) Shakayla Whitley contacted Mother for an updated address, but when she went to the new address Mother gave, “there was no answer or signs that anybody lived there.” Id. at 69. When FCM Whitley explained the importance of seeing Child to make sure she was safe, Mother said she was “admitting herself into rehab and that once she does that, then [DCS] could see [Child].” Id. at 70. Mother told FCM Whitley she has a history of methamphetamine use but didn't use it anymore and didn't use it around Child. FCM Whitley finally located Child at the house of P.M., Mother's boyfriend's mother. Mother's boyfriend “wasn't to be around” any of her children “[b]ased on a court order.” Id. at 72, 85. DCS concluded Child was being neglected due to possible drug use, inability to determine whether there was housing for Child, and overall lack of supervision.

[5] In May 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging Child is a CHINS and removed Child from Mother's care. DCS first considered placing Child with Mother's mother (“Grandmother”), but there was a third party living in Grandmother's house who had a criminal background, so DCS placed Child with her paternal aunt. Originally, Mother had supervised visitation with Child at an agency, but Child showed signs of “trauma” “when riding in a car seat,” so DCS believed Child “may or may not have lived in a vehicle ․ for a period of time prior to [its] involvement.” Id. at 114-15. Visitation was therefore changed to the placement's home. Later, DCS moved Child to kinship placement with P.M. at Mother's request, where Child has since remained.

[6] In addition to visitation, DCS referred Mother for random drug screens, a substance-use assessment, home-based services, and a domestic-violence course. Mother submitted 13 drug screens but missed 11 screens and 22 calls. Her test results were mostly consistent with her prescriptions for Suboxone and ADHD medication, but on May 28, Mother also tested positive for fentanyl and norfentanyl, which is “the result of ingestion of Fentanyl and nothing else.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 117. In June, Mother completed an assessment with Amanda Marcum at Cummins Behavioral Health. Mother, then 33, reported that she started using opiates at age 20 and methamphetamine at age 25 but stopped using opiates in 2011 when she began Suboxone treatment. She also disclosed that she'd relapsed on May 9 after 37 days of sobriety and that she still takes Suboxone as well as ADHD medication. Marcum recommended intensive outpatient therapy, which Mother completed and then was recommended to participate in aftercare. Mother also attended child-and-family team meetings (CFTMs) with DCS and her providers.

[7] At some point, Mother moved in with Grandmother. DCS ran a background check on Grandmother and discovered that she has a criminal history from around 20 years ago and prior involvement with DCS. DCS didn't do a home-safety check at Grandmother's because it “do[es]n't do a home check until after they pass the background check.” Tr. p. 85. Grandmother never attended any CFTMs, so DCS didn't “know if there's a relationship” between Grandmother and Child. Id. at 121. In August, Mother's home-based therapist, Zoie Rynard, went to the home for a meeting, and when Mother opened the door, a dog ran at Rynard and bit her on her thigh. The meeting was cut short because Rynard “had to go seek medical attention.” Id. at 58.

[8] The court held a fact-finding hearing on August 28. By that time, Mother had completed an online drug-and-alcohol course and was attending domestic-violence classes and NA meetings but hadn't yet started aftercare at Cummins. Mother was still living with Grandmother but was on waitlists for Section 8 housing and applying for housing through Habitat for Humanity. Mother testified that Child could live with her at Grandmother's and that she has a job lined up but “ha[s]n't been able to start because of [her] visit schedules.” Id. at 108. But Permanency FCM Joshua Lands testified that it was “unknown if [Mother] has employment at the time.” Id. at 121.

[9] Also at the time of the hearing, the paternity case for Mother's three oldest children was pending. Over Mother's objection, the court admitted into evidence the CCS and several orders from the paternity case, including an August 2022 order granting full physical custody to the children's father, an April 2024 order revoking Mother's overnight parenting time, and an August 2024 order finding Mother in contempt for failing to pay child support and granting full legal custody to the children's father. See Exs. 3-7. In the April 2024 order, the paternity court noted that “Mother's residence is unknown and she had previously communicated to [B.S.] that she may end up homeless in her car.” Ex. 5.

[10] In October, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Child to be a CHINS. Later that month, the court held a dispositional hearing and issued an order setting forth various requirements for Mother.

[11] Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Mother contends 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). 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.

[13] Here, 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.

[14] There is sufficient evidence that Mother's actions and inactions have seriously endangered Child. At the time of DCS's involvement here, Mother's and Child's living conditions were unclear. When police responded to the domestic disturbance between Mother and Father in April 2024, Officer Wells found Child, then one, lying on a bed inside a shed. Mother claimed she was there visiting Father, who had a warrant out for his arrest and burnt foil on his person, and both she and Father insisted she and Child weren't living in the shed. But Mother told Officer Wells she and Child had slept there the night before because “it was either the shed or ․ a hotel room.” That same month, the paternity court noted in an order that “Mother's residence is unknown and she had previously communicated to [B.S.] that she may end up homeless in her car.” And during the CHINS case, Child “show[ed] some behaviors when riding in a car seat,” which led DCS to believe Child may “have lived in a vehicle ․ for a period of time prior to [its] involvement.” After receiving the report of domestic violence and substance use, DCS tried to initiate its assessment within 24 hours, but Mother kept DCS from seeing Child by giving addresses where they didn't live. When DCS finally located Child around a month later, she was with P.M., whose son (Mother's boyfriend) wasn't allowed to be around any of Mother's children per court order.

[15] Mother's substance abuse has also seriously endangered Child. While DCS was trying to locate Child to initiate its assessment, FCM Whitley explained to Mother the importance of seeing Child to make sure she was safe. Mother admitted to FCM Whitley that she has a history of methamphetamine use and said she was checking herself into rehab and DCS could see Child after that. At her intake at Cummins, Mother disclosed her history of opiate and methamphetamine use and that she'd been on Suboxone treatment since 2011. Despite this treatment, Mother relapsed on May 9, 2024, while Child was still in her care.

[16] The evidence also establishes that Child's needs are unmet and are unlikely to be met without State coercion. To begin, Mother has years of involvement with DCS and has lost custody of her four other children. As explained above, after DCS first received the report of domestic violence and substance use in this case, Mother thwarted DCS's investigation and kept DCS from seeing Child for a month. Though Mother participated in home-based services and CFTMs, she has not yet obtained stable housing for Child. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, Mother was on waitlists for Section 8 housing and applying for housing through Habitat for Humanity. She currently lives with Grandmother, but DCS hasn't done a home-safety check at Grandmother's because it “do[es]n't do a home check until after they pass the background check,” and Grandmother's background check revealed that she has a criminal history (albeit from around 20 years ago) and prior involvement with DCS. DCS originally declined to place Child with Grandmother after removal because someone was living in Grandmother's house who didn't pass the background check. Grandmother never attended any CFTMs, so DCS wasn't able to determine whether Grandmother and Child have a relationship. And there are potential safety concerns at the house—one of the dogs living there ran at Rynard, Mother's home-based therapist, and bit her on her thigh, and the bite was serious enough that Rynard “had to go seek medical attention.” Additionally, Mother claimed at the fact-finding hearing that she had a job lined up, but she hadn't started it yet and didn't provide any verification of employment to the court or DCS.

[17] Further, Mother has not yet shown that she can be a sober caregiver for Child. Though she has been on Suboxone treatment since 2011, Mother still struggles with substance abuse. She relapsed on May 9 after 37 days of sobriety and tested positive for fentanyl and norfentanyl on May 28. To be sure, Mother has taken substantial steps toward sobriety—she submitted some random drug screens, participated in intensive outpatient treatment at Cummins, completed an online drug-and-alcohol course, and attended NA meetings. But by the time of the fact-finding hearing, she hadn't started the recommended aftercare at Cummins and had missed 11 drug screens and 22 calls. While we commend Mother's recent work toward sobriety, we agree with the trial court that “[g]iven the length of time that [M]other has struggled with substance abuse, her repeated stints in treatment programs with repeated relapses, coercive intervention of the Court is needed to assure her stability and sobriety.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 118.

[18] Mother has not shown that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.

[19] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

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