IN RE: R.A. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] R.A. (“Child”) was born on November 1, 2023, to S.H. (“Mother”) and J.C.J.A. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”).¹ In March of 2024, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed Child from Parents’ Anderson residence due to reports of the presence of drugs, an aggressive dog, and firearms; drug dealing; and neglect and petitioned the juvenile court to have Child found to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”). After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found Child to be a CHINS, a determination that Mother contends was clearly erroneous due to a lack of supporting evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Between March 9 and 22, 2024, DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Jaymar Dickerson assessed Mother and Father's home due to reports of firearms and an aggressive dog in the home, drug use, and drug dealing. DCS had also received reports that Child was being left unattended while Father “was running around selling drugs.” Tr. Vol. II p. 26. Mother submitted to a drug screen, which was positive for cocaine and marijuana; Father, who was aggressive and confrontational, refused a drug screen, although he later admitted that it would have been positive for marijuana. On March 22, 2024, Father told FCM Dickerson “that he would blow off [his] face.” Tr. Vol. II p. 32. While Mother was cooperative, Father's aggressive behavior prevented DCS from properly assessing the residence or ensuring that Child would be safe in Parents’ care. On or shortly after March 23, 2024, DCS removed Child and placed him in relative care.

[3] On March 25, 2024, DCS petitioned to have Child found to be a CHINS, alleging that his physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or endangered. On March 26, 2024, the juvenile court ordered continued relative placement with supervised visitation. At first, Parents visited Child together but appeared to continue to argue with each other (through text messages) in front of Child. Parents would get upset and end the visits early. Parents’ difficulties with each other resulted in visits occurring separately about ten to fifteen minutes apart. After visits began occurring separately, Mother was diligent and engaged and responded well to suggestions during visits. Visitation supervisor Lakesha Winters had no issues with Mother at all.

[4] On May 2, 2024, Anderson Police Officer Abigail Leath responded to a report of a domestic dispute involving gunfire at Mother's residence. Officer Leath arrived at the scene, and Mother reported to her that she and Father had been in a verbal altercation that had culminated in Father firing several shots out of the front door. A no-contact order (“the NCO”) was entered prohibiting Father from having contact with Mother or going to her home. After the NCO was issued, Mother somehow provided Father with a childcare backpack between visits with Child. Winters spoke to Mother about it “being unsafe” to meet with Father to exchange the backpack, but Mother claimed that her sister had done it. Tr. Vol. II p. 62.

[5] After Parents began visiting with Child separately, Father's attendance became sporadic. When Father came to his individual visits, his behavior was appropriate. Outside of visits, however, Father seemed to be “very distracted.” Tr. Vol. II p. 61. One visitation referral closed because Father had too many “no call no shows” despite Winters rearranging her schedule and calling him to confirm. Tr. Vol. II p. 61.

[6] The first day of the fact-finding hearing was held on May 20, 2024. On June 21, 2024, Father was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and operating a vehicle with a suspended license. The second day of the fact-finding hearing was held on July 16, 2024. Father testified that he had participated in a fatherhood engagement program until his June 21 arrest. Father, however, also admitted that he used marijuana to self-medicate symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Although Father also testified that he had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety, he had not attended treatment for any of these mental-health issues.

[7] According to permanency FCM Alycia Hacker, Mother had completed assessments and attended some services between removal and the fact-finding hearing. Specifically, Mother had completed an assessment with Aspire Indiana Health, which had resulted in a recommendation that she participate in individual therapy, extended outpatient classes to address her drug use, and receive skills training with a recovery coach. Mother, however, had not engaged in the recommended substance-abuse therapy. Mother had provided at least ten drug screens before the fact-finding hearing, which the juvenile court found to have indicated no new drug use.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS and explained to Mother that “if you allow [the NCO] to be broken or if you fail another drug screen, I'm going to issue an order to take detain [sic] the child immediately.” Tr. Vol. II p. 105. The juvenile court ordered Child returned to Mother's care on a trial basis and ordered that family-preservation services be put in place.

[9] On August 14, 2024, the juvenile court held its dispositional hearing. On August 28, 2024, the juvenile court issued its dispositional order, in which it ordered Mother to cooperate with DCS, not use or possess any illegal controlled substances or allow the use or possession of illegal drugs in her home, complete a parenting assessment and successfully complete all recommendations, complete a substance-abuse assessment and follow all recommendations, submit to random drug screens, participate in individual counseling and demonstrate positive changes in her life. The juvenile court ordered Father to cooperate with DCS, maintain safe and stable housing, secure and maintain a legal source of income, not use or possess any illegal controlled substances, obey the law, complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations, complete a substance-abuse assessment and follow all recommendations, submit to random drug screens, and participate in individual counseling and demonstrate positive changes in his life.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Mother contends that DCS failed to produce evidence sufficient to sustain the juvenile court's finding that Child was a CHINS.² Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 provides that a child is a CHINS before the child becomes eighteen years of age if

(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 [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.

[11] The Indiana Supreme Court has stated the following:

“[T]he State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Egly v. Blackford County Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992). We consider only the evidence that supports the [juvenile] court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the [juvenile] court was clearly erroneous. Id.

In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012) (footnote omitted). A decision is clearly erroneous if the facts do not support the findings or if the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard to properly-found facts. In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–78 (Ind. 2017).

[12] The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is not to punish parents but, rather, to protect children. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. Despite a “certain implication of parental fault in many CHINS adjudications, the truth of the matter is that a CHINS adjudication is simply that—a determination that a child is in need of services.” Id. Moreover, a separate analysis as to each parent's relationship to the child's needs is not always required to support an adjudication of CHINS. Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1209 (Ind. 2019). Where, as here, the juvenile court has not issued any written findings, the order is reviewed as a general judgment that “ ‘will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.’ ” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997)). Mother contends that DCS failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain findings either that Child was endangered or that court intervention was necessary.

[13] We conclude that DCS proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Child remained endangered by Father's behaviors and that Mother might have been unwilling or unable to protect Child from Father. Mother argues that she was the victim of domestic violence and that DCS only ever proved a one-time use of cocaine. Even if we assume that this is true, Mother's argument fails to acknowledge evidence of Father's neglect of Child, violent and aggressive behavior, admitted drug use, and other charged criminal activity. DCS initially became involved, in part, because of reports of Father's neglect of Child while dealing drugs. Moreover, one fight between Parents resulted in gunshots and Father's arrest, and Father threatened to “blow off [FCM Dickerson's] face.” Tr. Vol. II p. 32. Father admitted to ongoing use of marijuana, refused to submit to drug screens, and was charged with marijuana possession while this case was pending. Finally, there is also some evidence that Father and Mother had not been abiding by the terms of the NCO, specifically, by meeting in person to exchange a visitation-related backpack.

[14] Because Father is involved with Child's life, the juvenile court was entitled to take all of these things into account. Child has two parents, and, even if it is only Father who poses a direct threat to Child's welfare, Mother's failure to adequately protect Child from Father is relevant. The trial court's conclusion that Child was endangered by the actions and/or inactions of Parents was not clearly erroneous. Mother's argument in this regard is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253.

[15] Once the juvenile court finds that the evidence supports by a preponderance of the evidence the first element of the CHINS statute, it must determine whether court intervention is necessary to safeguard the child. Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1(2)–11(2). The same evidence upon which the juvenile court determined that the parents had injured or endangered a child may also support that coercive intervention is necessary to safeguard the child. See, e.g., In re V.C., 867 N.E.2d 167, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (concluding that the same evidence supported both CHINS adjudication and custody modification).

[16] While it is true that Mother had been cooperative with DCS, the evidence also showed that she was less able to cooperate with DCS if Father was present. At the beginning of the case, DCS was unable to properly assess the residence due to Father's continued presence, which, of course, culminated in an argument in which shots were fired. Even after court intervention in the form of the NCO, there is some indication that Mother and Father still had some contact. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court's conclusion that additional judicial intervention (in the form of a CHINS finding) was necessary is supported by sufficient evidence.

[17] Mother's argument relies, in large part, on our decisions in In re S.M., 45 N.E.3d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App 2015), and In re S.K., 57 N.E.3d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We conclude that this reliance is misplaced, as both cases are readily distinguishable on the facts. In S.M., we reversed CHINS determinations because there was “no evidence in the record that at any point in time, any of the children were endangered.” 45 N.E.3d at 1255. In S.K., we reversed because “[t]he record and findings do not support a conclusion that the children lacked shelter, education, or supervision.” 57 N.E.3d at 882. Here, in contrast, there was evidence of guns, drug use, drug dealing, and an aggressive dog in the home; domestic violence; and neglect, which is more than enough to support a finding of endangerment. Mother's reliance on S.M. and S.K. is unavailing.

[18] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father does not participate in this appeal.

2.   On November 10, 2024, the juvenile court dismissed the CHINS proceeding at DCS's request.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.