IN RE: A.M. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] L.M. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's determination that S.D., A.M., and B.M. (“Children”) were children in need of services (“CHINS”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and C.M. (“Mother,” and together with Father, “Parents”) are the parents of S.D., born in January 2019, A.M., born in April 2022, and B.M., born in April 2023. On June 26, 2024, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging that Children were CHINS. DCS asserted that it received a report on June 3, 2024, alleging Children to be victims of neglect due to domestic violence and law enforcement found them to be unsupervised. It alleged that on June 4, 2024, a family case manager observed a verbal argument between Parents, both Parents admitted to drinking alcohol and “it causing an argument the day prior,” the family case manager observed that Children's bedroom door was broken and hanging off the hinges, Mother stated that Father was emotionally abusive towards her, and Father requested assistance through DCS. It asserted that, on June 10, 2024, the family case manager observed two vehicles at the home with broken windshields and Mother admitted that she had broken the windshields. DCS alleged that it received another report on June 18, 2024, that there were concerns regarding marijuana and methamphetamine use by Parents, Mother's mental health, domestic violence in the presence of Children, a lack of food in the home, and concerns about the development of the youngest child. It asserted that Mother admitted on June 20, 2024, that Children had witnessed domestic violence and she asked for assistance through DCS. DCS alleged that Mother had pending charges for domestic battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old and domestic battery and had been arrested on June 24, 2024, for possession of methamphetamine. It stated that, after being arrested, Mother told the family case manager that she would not participate in substance use treatment and she did not address her mental health even though she agreed to do so in a safety plan created weeks earlier. It alleged that Father had a documented history of drinking alcohol and aggression, pled guilty under cause number 40C01-2212-CM-418 to disorderly conduct after allegedly being intoxicated and fighting another person at a neighbor's house, and “took a pretrial diversion” under cause number 36D01-1809-CM-941 on the charges of “Illegal Consumption of an Alcoholic Beverage and Resisting Law Enforcement.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 74.

[3] On June 27, 2024, the court held an initial hearing. That same day, the court entered an Order on Initial/Detention Hearing which found that Children should continue to be detained, and the court adopted DCS's recommendation that placement continue with Father “as long as he is able and willing to safely care for” Children. Id. at 83.

[4] On July 26, 2024, DCS filed a Request for Taking or Continued Custody in which it alleged that Mother's access to Children had already been restricted by the trial court and Mother had been observed unsupervised in the community with Children, her vehicle had been seen at the family home, the oldest child reported that Mother was in the home, and Parents were “displaying an inability and/or unwillingness to follow safety plans designed to keep [Children] safe.” Id. at 106.

[5] On July 30, 2024, the court held a hearing. Family Case Manager Kelly Watkins (“FCM Watkins”) testified that there was a concern brought “as early as the 19th” and then “we got confirmation from the daycare staff and from the child that [Mother] had been in the home after the time that she was not allowed to be in the home” and that caused concern because “there had been domestic violence [between] the parents and an order stating that she was not supposed to be around children without visit supervision.” Transcript Volume II at 45-46. She also testified that DCS did not believe that Father would obey the court's order. She also indicated that domestic violence between Parents had been “well documented” and there had been “several police calls to the home.” Id. at 48. The court entered an Emergency Custody Order in which it authorized DCS to take Children into immediate protective custody.

[6] On August 6, 2024, the court held a factfinding hearing. DCS presented the testimony of multiple witnesses including Jennings County Sheriff's Deputy Blake Maynard, Margaret Parker, a pediatric nurse practitioner, Jennings County Sheriff's Deputy Dylan Smock, Julia Miller, an assessor employed by DCS, and FCM Watkins.

[7] After DCS rested, Father acknowledged that there had been “several 911 calls to [his] residence.” Id. at 139. He indicated that Mother had been “diagnosed with a couple disorders through Centerstone,” she “needs help,” “[a] few times she didn't receive help,” “[s]he's good now on her medications, but poor medication,” and “she's not going to accept help from me.” Id. at 140. He indicated that he had never perpetrated domestic violence and “[l]egally I don't look at myself as a victim, but, yeah, on paper to other people I've been a victim of violence.” Id.

[8] During cross-examination by DCS's counsel, Father indicated that a woman obtained a protective order against him because “[s]he kept [his] son from [him].” Id. at 158. DCS's counsel asked if he had a child with the woman, and he answered affirmatively. Father's counsel objected on relevance. DCS's counsel argued that a parent's past behavior was relevant to a CHINS proceeding. The court overruled the objection and stated, “I think that we can definitely look into potential issues with [Father's] past. It just goes to weight, not relevance.” Id. at 159. DCS's counsel introduced certified court records of the protective order where Father was the respondent as Petitioner's Exhibit 3, and Father's counsel objected on the basis of hearsay. The court noted the objection and admitted the exhibit.

[9] Father acknowledged that he had cases involving minor consumption and resisting law enforcement. DCS's counsel introduced certified documents in cause number 36D01-1809-CM-941 in which Father was charged with illegal consumption of an alcoholic beverage and resisting law enforcement and moved to admit the documents as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Father's counsel objected on the basis of relevancy, and the court overruled the objection and admitted the exhibits. Father testified that he believed he might have “taken a pretrial diversion, but [he] [did not] remember what it was for by then.” Id. at 161. Father acknowledged that he pled guilty to disorderly conduct and engaging in fighting or tumultuous conduct under cause number 40D01-2212-CM-418. DCS's counsel referenced “a certified document of 40D01-2212-CM-000418” and moved to admit it as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Id. Father's counsel objected on the basis of “relevance, hearsay.” Id. at 162. DCS's counsel argued that a parent's past behavior is the best predictor of their future behavior and asserted that the evidence was relevant because Father placed “all the blame” on Mother but “it's not only [Mother] here” and “[t]his is a character evidence that's allowed in.” Id. The court overruled the objection and admitted the exhibit. On recross-examination by Mother's counsel, Father indicated that the cause that was “filed in July 2018” was successfully dismissed and that the “Jackson County criminal matter” was six years old and was dismissed. Id. at 163. After closing arguments, the court heard from Sherry Serrano who was present on behalf of Advocates for Children.

[10] On August 22, 2024, the court entered an Order on Fact Finding Hearing adjudicating Children to be CHINS. Following a dispositional hearing, the court entered a dispositional order.

Discussion

[11] Father argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Children's needs were unmet or that their needs were unlikely to be met without State coercion. He asserts there were no issues of substance use or mental health regarding him and his drug screens were negative. He argues that there was no evidence of domestic violence between himself and Mother since June 2024 and that any prior domestic violence involved him being the victim. He also asserts that Mother's medication was working well at the time of the factfinding hearing and, as a result, her mental health was stable and she no longer suffered manic episodes. He contends that both he and Mother were willing to participate in services and the court's intervention was not needed.¹

[12] In reviewing a trial court's determination that a child is in need of services, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and consider only the evidence which supports the court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. We apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 1287. We will reverse a CHINS determination only if it is clearly erroneous. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). 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.

[13] Ind. Code § 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.

The statute does not require a court to wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, a child is a CHINS when the child is endangered by parental action or inaction. Id. The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not punish parents. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). “The resolution of a juvenile proceeding focuses on the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or innocence as in a criminal proceeding.” Id.

[14] To the extent Father does not challenge the trial court's findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

[15] The trial court's August 2024 order adjudicating Children as CHINS found that the family had gone through multiple DCS assessments involving substance use and domestic violence concerns; Parents admitted that Children witnessed domestic violence; and Mother had pending charges of domestic battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old and domestic battery in cause number 40C01-2312-F6-283. With respect to the June 3, 2024 incident, the court found that, “[e]ven if leaving [Children] home alone was an accident that resulted from the chaos of what was going on at the time, it is an example of the direct impact turmoil amongst the parents can have on young children.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 119. The court observed that, “[o]n this evening, it is clear that [Children's] needs were secondary, and as a result – three children under the age of 5 were left in the home with no adult supervision.” Id. The court found that Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on June 20 and 27, 2024. It further found that Father expressed numerous concerns with Mother's mental health and substance abuse yet he continued leaving Children alone with Mother. The court did not find Father to be credible. It found that the family “has displayed an unwillingness or an inability to follow safety plans and Court orders,” “Parents have made contradictory statements about their willingness to work with DCS and participate in services,” “Father has refused a drug screen and told DCS that DCS should not come onto his property,” Mother refused to work with a visit supervisor for a period of time, and “Parents have not shown an ability to resolve the safety concerns without the coercive intervention of the Court.” Id. at 121.

[16] The record reveals that Deputy Maynard testified that he received numerous calls to Parents’ residence. When asked if he had received ten calls to their residence in the previous ten years, he answered, “More than likely, yes.” Transcript Volume II at 61. He described the calls as domestic violence and indicated that, “[a] lot of times upon [his] arrival, [he] can hear them yelling, screaming from outside the residence,” and Children are present. Id. In describing the incident on June 3, 2024, he stated that Children's bedroom was what he would “consider to be unclean, just piles of clothes” and “[n]ot necessarily the environment [he] would want small children hanging out in.” Id. at 63. When asked if Mother was the “sole problem,” Deputy Maynard answered, “I'm going to say it's 50-50. I believe it's, in my opinion, a volatile relationship. A lot of times it's her that's most distraught. Upon our arrival, it's [Father] trying to portray that he's the voice of reason. But I believe the issues to be 50-50. Very toxic relationship.” Id. at 64. He testified that he thought that what Children “observe has became normal to them” and “they've normalized disputes and domestic violence.” Id. at 74.

[17] Parker, Children's primary care provider, testified that B.M. has congenital hyperthyroidism and she had concerns related to missed appointments. Specifically, she testified that B.M. was fifteen months old and had “nine no show appointments in his 15 months,”² S.D. had “eight missed appointments ․ since 2020 or 2021,” and A.M. had “the same amount of missed appointments.” Id. at 79-80.

[18] Miller, the assessor, testified that “[b]oth parents had admitted to some domestic violence,” Father “had said that [Mother] was physical with him,” and Mother said that “there was emotional abuse going on by” Father, he “would take the keys and not let her leave the home,” she “wasn't allowed to have friends,” and he did not “like it when she talked to her mom.” Id. at 92. She testified that she believed Children had witnessed some of the arguing and that Mother had mentioned that S.D. “could probably use therapy because she had observed some emotional abuse going on in the home and that she's probably witnessed some domestic violence.” Id. at 93.

[19] Miller indicated that the family did not willingly participate in services. Specifically, Miller put a visit provider in place, and Mother “did not want to do that” and she “felt it was enough for [Father] to supervise visits.” Id. at 95. After her assessment, Miller identified the primary safety concerns as Children witnessing domestic violence in the home and having access to substances in the home. She was also concerned about mental health because it was not being addressed properly.

[20] Miller created a safety plan “the first night [she] went out there” to ensure that law enforcement would be called if needed and Father had mentioned that he would take Children and leave the home “if he needed to,” and, if Mother was suicidal, he would contact law enforcement or take her to the hospital. Id. at 96. Miller indicated that Father followed the safety plan initially “but he ended up leaving the home.” Id. She testified that, after the creation of the safety plan, she “was just told that [Father] got kicked out and he left the home” without Children and that Mother indicated it was “at least two days at that point.” Id. at 96, 101. Miller also testified that Mother did not follow the safety plan because she continued to test positive for substances. When asked if Parents were “able to handle the things on their own,” Miller answered in the negative. Id. at 97. Whenever Miller discussed participating in services to address substance use, Mother said that “she did not need it.” Id. at 100. Miller also testified that Father said that placing a visit provider was not necessary. When asked about her concern with Father, Miller answered, “[T]hey were continuing the – continuing domestic violence was a concern․ [T]hat was the reason why we had put the visit provider in place ․” Id. at 102. Miller testified that when she let Father know there was an emergency custody order detaining Children from Mother, he “genuinely thanked” her, but he did not want a visit supervisor even though the court had ordered supervised visitation, and he “felt like he could supervise the visits.” Id. at 104, 106.

[21] On recross-examination by Father's counsel, Miller testified that, even though Mother was served that morning with a warrant, the primary concern was not alleviated and she thought “the family needs services.” Id. at 107. She indicated that Father said he “didn't have a whole lot of people to help out with his work schedule and daycare schedule,” “[s]ometimes he works late” or has different hours, and he explained this “was an issue for him with [Mother] being out of the house.” Id. She acknowledged that Children were placed with a friend who passed a background check, but also testified that “I still feel like the family needs resources,” Children “need resources, whether it's therapy,” and Mother “needs to address her mental health and her substance use.” Id. at 108. On redirect examination, Miller indicated that she did not know when Mother would be released from incarceration and that her concerns regarding domestic violence did not subside because Mother was arrested that morning.

[22] FCM Watkins testified that Mother seemed willing to work with DCS at one point but there had been other instances where she received messages from Mother “indicating more of a threatening behavior towards DCS.” Id. at 111. She testified that Father stated that he felt that his family needed some services during “that initial interaction at the detention hearing,” but “we've seen an unwillingness out of him as well,” “[h]e refused to screen on July 31st, which was at the facilitation,” and “there's just been some roadblocks there that he's putting up very early on in the case.” Id. at 112. When asked if Father communicated an unwillingness to work with DCS through text messages, she answered, “Yes, [she] received text messages from him that ․ stated that [she] would be removed from the case, or that when [she] was removed from this case that [she] would no longer be allowed to step foot on his property․ [H]e indicated that DCS themselves should not step foot on his property.” Id. FCM Watkins also expressed concerns for Children regarding domestic violence and mental health. She indicated that her concerns remained even though Mother was incarcerated, that Mother had been the “sole provider” for Children, and she believed Father would benefit from “a fatherhood engagement,” Father had stated that Mother was the one responsible for “doctor's appointments and those kinds of things,” and Father was “essentially in a new role figuring out how to be the sole provider for three children and go to work if [Mother] remains incarcerated.” Id. at 113-114.

[23] On cross-examination by Father's counsel, when asked if she had any safety concerns for just Father, FCM Watkins answered, “So, the concerns would be the domestic violence when [Mother] comes home. That needs to be addressed between the two of them ․ before the home would be considered stable.” Id. at 118. She also testified that “the concern with [Father] came after the safety plan was not being followed.” Id. at 126. She testified that the safety plan was not followed because Mother was seen with Children in public, S.D. said that Mother had been home, and the vehicle was seen on the property.

[24] Upon questioning by the court, FCM Watkins indicated Children needed therapy. When asked why a CHINS case was necessary, she answered:

There's been a lot of back and forth from parents, which causes concern. As a permanency worker, I've seen parents who are angry, but still willing to work with the department. And that's not the indication that I'm getting from these parents. My indication would be if there's not coercive intervention from the Court overseeing it, that they would, for any reason, state that they do not want to take part or attempt to not fully engage in the services that I believe are needed for this family.

Id. at 131. On redirect examination, DCS's counsel asked “what is the safety risk if [Children] are back in the home with” Parents, and FCM Watkins answered, “With both parents at this point in time, there's no indication of the ability to change behavior in regards to their relationship with one another and how it is negatively affecting [Children].” Id. at 132.

[25] After the presentation of evidence and closing arguments, Serrano, present at the hearing on behalf of Advocates for Children, stated:

I'm very torn as to, um, I do believe an in-home CHINS is absolutely necessary. There's a lot of underlying factors that play into [domestic violence]. And I believe on both ․ father and mother's side. And I do believe that services, um, both parents as well as the children, would be very beneficial to them, um, because there are a lot of underlying factors that have not yet come up out of this, um, that haven't been dealt with. So I would recommend an in-home CHINS.

Id. at 184. After some discussion, she also stated, “So, I just want to make a correction. I do believe that children are in need of adjudication. They need to be adjudicated as children in need of services.” Id. at 185.

[26] In light of the evidence set forth above and in the record, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating Children as CHINS.

[27] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[28] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father also argues that the trial court erred in admitting Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A) provides: “No error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief or reversal on appeal where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[w]hen an appellate court must determine whether a non-constitutional error is harmless, Rule 66(A)’s ‘probable impact test’ controls.” Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024). “Under this test, the party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence in the case, the error's probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below.” Id. We conclude that when considering the entire record in this case, our confidence in the trial court's judgment is not undermined. Accordingly, any error in the trial court's admission of Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 was harmless.

2.   When asked for the dates of the nine no show appointments for B.M., she answered: “April 26th, 2023. June 19th, 2023. August 21st, 2023. January 10th, 2024. January 19th, 2024. January 27th, 2024. January 30th, 2024. April 26th, 2024. June 6th, 2024. June 20th, 2024. That's the last one.” Transcript Volume II at 81.

Brown, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Weissmann concur. Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.