IN RE: S.P. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] S.P. (“Child”) is the biological child of J.P. (“Mother”) and A.S. (“Father”).¹ Due to concerns regarding Mother's mental health and Child missing 37 days of school, Child was removed from Mother's care and a child in need of services (“CHINS”) petition was filed. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Child a CHINS and ordered Mother to participate in reunification services. Mother later admitted to using marijuana daily, and the trial court modified Mother's dispositional order, requiring her to participate in a substance abuse assessment and random drug screens. Mother now appeals, raising one issue for our review, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court clearly erred by modifying the dispositional order.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Child was born on June 30, 2008. On February 21, 2023, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging Child was a CHINS due to Child's 37 unexcused absences from school, Child's poor educational performance, and Mother's unstable mental health. After a factfinding hearing, the trial court adjudicated Child a CHINS. In the ensuing dispositional order (the “Original Dispositional Order”), the trial court ordered Mother to refrain from using illegal or unprescribed drugs and to complete psychological and psychiatric evaluations, among other requirements.

[4] On July 22, 2024, DCS filed a motion to modify the Original Dispositional Order, asking the trial court to require Mother to participate in substance abuse-related services. At the hearing on this motion, DCS family case manager (“FCM”) Meaghan Cole testified that Mother participated in a psychiatric evaluation (the “Psychiatric Evaluation”) in March 2024, during which she “revealed that she was using cannabis daily.” Tr. Vol. II at 190. FCM Cole agreed that a “substance abuse assessment and regular drug screen[s] would help ․ get a better sense for what the appropriate path forward is for medication management for [M]other.” Id. at 191. FCM Cole also testified that Mother's service providers had refused to work with Mother “until [Mother was] medicated.” Id. at 189. Child's court appointed special advocate (the “CASA”) testified that she was “in agreement with a substance abuse assessment” because “in [the Psychiatric Evaluation, she] indicated that she does use cannabis daily.” Id. at 194. Mother testified and denied using marijuana daily, telling the court that the last time she used the drug was “[p]robably over eight years ago” or “longer.” Id. at 196.

[5] On August 5, the trial court issued its order modifying the Original Dispositional Order, ordering Mother to participate in a substance abuse assessment and random drug screens. The trial court did not include specific findings of fact to support these additional dispositional requirements. On September 3, Mother filed her Notice of Appeal. Before the case was fully briefed, DCS filed a motion to remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to amend its modified dispositional order, and this court granted that motion.

[6] On January 24, 2025, the trial court issued its new order modifying the dispositional decree (the “New Modified Dispositional Decree”), based on a “review of the testimony presented” and a progress report filed by DCS. Appellant's Supp. App. Vol. II at 18. The trial court found in relevant part as follows:

6. Mother has a history of marijuana use. FCM Meaghan Cole credibly testified that Mother attended a psychiatric evaluation at Oaklawn during which Mother reported using cannabis on a daily basis. Mother credibly testified that she used marijuana in the past; however, denied using marijuana currently.

7. Mother has demonstrated continued mental health struggles both as credibly testified to by FCM Cole and demonstrated in Court. FCM Cole credibly testified that Mother's contracted service providers are unwilling to work with Mother due to her mental health and the safety risks it poses for their staff.

* * *

9. Due to Mother's mental health needs, service providers have refused to continue working with Mother until Mother is receiving medication to treat her mental health issues.

10. Mother's mental health issues require an evaluation and possible medication. It is imperative for [DCS] to be able to monitor Mother's marijuana use to determine what implication Mother's marijuana use is having on Mother's mental health. A substance abuse assessment and random drug screens would be the only way to monitor said use.

11. As such the Court Orders the following:

a. Mother shall participate in a substance abuse assessment.

b. Mother shall participate in random drug screens.

Appellant's Supp. App. Vol. II at 18–19 (internal citations omitted). Mother now appeals the New Modified Dispositional Decree.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Clearly Err by Modifying the Original Dispositional Order

[7] Mother contends the trial court erred by modifying the Original Dispositional Order. A trial court has “broad discretion in determining what programs and services in which a parent is required to participate” following a CHINS determination, but “the requirements must relate to some behavior or circumstances that was [sic] revealed by the evidence.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1258 (Ind. 2012) (citing A.C. v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 905 N.E.2d 456, 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)). Here, the trial court entered findings and conclusions, so we review for clear error. See In re R.L., 144 N.E.3d 686, 689 (Ind. 2020) (citing 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 [the trial court] applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.” Id. (quoting D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 578). “[W]e neither reweigh [the] evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Id. (citing D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577–78).

[8] Mother specifically argues that the trial court's findings in the New Modified Dispositional Decree “related to the modification requiring [her] to submit to [a] substance abuse assessment and random drug screens are not in fact supported by the evidence ․” Appellant's Am. Br. at 7. This is a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do, see R.L., 144 N.E.3d at 689 (citing D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577–578). For example, Mother challenges the contents of the progress report the trial court “adopt[ed] and incorporate[d]” into the New Modified Dispositional Decree.² Appellant's Am. Br. at 7. In particular, Mother takes issue with the following statement in that report: “Mother has a substantial history of substance use ․” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 198. To further the argument, Mother complains, essentially, that there is no foundational evidence in the report to permit the conclusion that Mother has a history of substance use.³ Mother's challenge to this statement ignores the trial court's finding that FCM Cole credibly testified that Mother had reported daily cannabis use during the Psychiatric Evaluation. It further ignores the trial court's findings regarding Mother's mental health and the effect her instability has on her ability to participate in services—the trial court specifically found that a substance abuse assessment and random drug screens are “the only way to monitor” Mother's marijuana use and its impact on her mental health. Appellant's Supp. App. Vol. II at 19.

[9] Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred when it modified the dispositional order to require Mother to participate in a substance abuse assessment and random drug screens. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision to require Mother to participate in those additional services.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Although the trial court did not expressly specify which one of DCS's progress reports it was adopting and incorporating, the trial court quoted from the progress report DCS filed on July 17, 2024. Mother concedes the July 17 progress report is the one the trial court adopted and incorporated into the New Modified Dispositional Decree.

3.   We note that Mother did not object to the trial court's adoption and incorporation of the progress report.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Foley concur. Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.