IN RE: S.K. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] N.K. (“Father”) appeals the adjudication of S.K. (“Child”) as a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). He argues the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) did not present sufficient evidence to prove that Child was a CHINS. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and M.W. (“Mother”)¹ (collectively, “Parents”) are the parents of Child, born August 5, 2020, and his sister, A.K. (“Sibling”), born April 25, 2019. Father established paternity of Child and Sibling (collectively, “Children”)² in 2022 and 2020, respectively. In 2024, Parents had joint custody and alternated full weeks with Children.

[3] On July 1, 2024, DCS received a report alleging Father had been sexually abusing Children. Family Case Manager Dayna Norman (“FCM Norman”) investigated the report. She spoke to Children at The CASIE Center, because Children were staying with Father at the time of her investigation. When interviewing Sibling, FCM Norman showed Sibling, who was five years old at the time, pictures of male and female body parts and Sibling “identified [the] vagina as ‘Booty,[’] and reported this is where she poops and pees.” (App. Vol. II at 18.) Sibling pointed to her vagina and told FCM Norman that “Daddy touched my butt” and “it hurt sometimes.” (Id.) FCM Norman also interviewed Child, who was three years old at the time, and asked him if anyone had ever seen him without his clothes. Child responded, “Dad ․ [h]e didn't give me clothes because he takes them away.” (Id.) Child then stated, “ ‘don't tell it.’ ” (Id.) FCM Norman referred Children to a forensic nurse at St. Joseph Regional Hospital. The nurse did not find any physical indication of sexual trauma. When asked what he called the area where he “poops” Child told the forensic nurse, “Butt. It was dad.” (Id. at 19.)

[4] The forensic nurse also interviewed Mother. Mother reported that “every time [Children] return from [Father's] house, they are acting out in sexual ways[.]” (Id.) Mother stated Child “plays with his private parts non-stop” and tries “to touch [Sibling's] private parts[.]” (Id.) Mother also told the forensic nurse that Child “will get under the blanket, take off his clothes, and touch himself.” (Id.)

[5] On or about July 1, 2024, St. Joseph County Police Department Special Victims Unit Detective Matthew Sterling spoke with Father. Father told Detective Sterling that “he could have possibly touched [Sibling] when he was drying her off after a bath and stated that he suffers from seizures and blacks out sometimes.” (Id. at 30.) Father also told Detective Sterling “that he doesn't remember if anything happened, but if it did, he doesn't want it to happen again ․ [and] he doesn't remember anything ever ‘slipping inside.’ ” (Id.) DCS took emergency custody of Children to remove Children from Father's home. DCS placed Children with Mother, where they remained throughout the proceedings. On July 3, 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging Children were CHINS based on Father's alleged sexual abuse and Parents’ neglect based on their failure to address certain inappropriate sexual behaviors between Children. The same day, Mother admitted Children were CHINS and Father entered a denial. The trial court took Mother's admission “under advisement pending resolution with respect to Father.” (Id. at 13.)

[6] On September 6, 2024, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing. In addition to testimony and evidence regarding the prior interviews, Father's wife,³ B.T., testified regarding her interactions with Children. She testified she observed Children “on top of each other or like under the sheets on top of each other[.]” (Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 33.)⁴ She also told the trial court that one time “[Sibling] was on her knees and she was, like, in front of [Child's] private parts and she was, like, acting [that] out[.]” (Id.) She said she talked to Mother and Father both times.

[7] On October 31, 2024, the trial court entered its fact-finding order adjudicating Child as a CHINS. In its order regarding Child, the trial court found “that it would be in the best interests of [Child] to be removed from the home environment and remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child because [Child] needs protection.” (App. Vol. II at 37.) The trial court granted the petition that Child is a CHINS. The trial court held a dispositional hearing on the same day and entered its dispositional order on that day as well. The trial court made additional findings stating that:

[I]t is in the best interests of [Child] to be removed from the home environment and remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of [Child] because of the allegations admitted, of an inability to provide shelter, care, and/or supervision at the present time, the child needs protection, and [Child] has special needs that require services for care and treatment that cannot be provided in the home.

Based on the prior adjudication of CHINS, [Child] needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation.

(Id. at 39.) The trial court's dispositional order required Father to, among other things, contact the FCM, allow the FCM to make announced and unannounced visits to his home, maintain suitable housing, participate in home-based counseling, complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations, complete a psychosexual evaluation and follow all recommendations, and participate in supervised visitation with Children.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Father appeals the adjudication of Child as a CHINS. In CHINS proceedings,

the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. When reviewing a CHINS adjudication, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility and will reverse a determination only if the decision was clearly erroneous. 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.

Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 2019) (internal quotations and citations omitted). DCS alleged Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, which states:

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.

“A CHINS adjudication focuses on the [needs and] condition of the child.” Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010)). “The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not [to] punish parents.” Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475 (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106) (brackets added in Matter of N.E.).

[9] Here, the trial court did not enter specific findings, but findings are not required unless the parties requested findings under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), which they did not. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286 (Ind. 2014) (“[u]nlike CHINS dispositional decrees ․ no statute expressly requires formal findings in a CHINS fact-finding order”), reh'g denied. When a trial court does not enter findings, we review under a general judgment standard and will affirm the judgment “if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. at 1287 (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997)).

[10] Father contends the State presented no evidence Child was a victim of a sex offense or neglect. Father asserts the primary reason for DCS involvement – Sibling's allegation that Father touched her inappropriately – was untrue. However, Father failed to acknowledge that in his interview with Detective Sterling, Father admitted that he could have touched Sibling and that he has seizures and blacks out. Further, Father did not appeal Sibling's adjudication as a CHINS, so we agree with the State that “the court's conclusion she was the victim of sexual abuse is established.” (Supp. Appellee Br. at 12.)

[11] Father also argues the CHINS adjudication was improper because he had two-bedroom housing that was suitable for Children. Father contends that Mother is the one having difficulty providing housing for Children and has been evicted. Father fails to recognize that “[b]ecause a CHINS determination regards the status of the child, a separate analysis as to each parent is not required in the CHINS determination stage.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. Accordingly, it was not improper for the trial court to include housing as a reason for Child's CHINS adjudication.

[12] Finally, Father acknowledges that Children displayed sexually maladaptive behaviors, such as lying on top of each other and simulating sexual acts, but he argues there was no evidence that Father was causing the behavior or was not correcting the behavior. He also asserts the trial court's intervention was not necessary because he was willing to take Child to therapy. However, Father's version of the facts ignores the remainder of the record.

[13] Mother reported Children acted out sexually when they returned from Father's house. Father, Mother, and B.T. admitted Children engaged in inappropriate sexualized behaviors for about a year. Neither Parent took Children to therapy until the trial court ordered Child's participation in play therapy. Father's argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d at 1208 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). “A CHINS proceeding focuses on the best interests of the children, not the ‘guilt or innocence’ of either parent[,]” Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106), and trial courts do not need to wait for a tragedy to occur before they declare children to be in need of services. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d at 980. Children's consistent maladaptive behaviors, without adequate intervention by either Parent, support the CHINS adjudication. See, e.g., Matter of K.W., 178 N.E.3d 1199, 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (evidence presented by DCS that children needed a home free from sexual abuse, which was a need not likely to be met by father, are sufficient to support trial court's conclusion that children were CHINS).

Conclusion

[14] DCS presented sufficient evidence Child was a CHINS. Accordingly, we affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother admitted Child was a CHINS and does not participate in this appeal.

2.   The trial court adjudicated Sibling a CHINS in a separate order. Father does not appeal that order, but as most of the allegations involve both children, we recite the facts relevant to both.

3.   The record refers to B.T. as Father's wife, and B.T. refers to herself in the supplemental transcript as Father's wife. However, Father testified “legally, we haven't finished getting married, and that was probably confusing for her because she didn't know yet, and I had, you know, been meaning to get all the paperwork.” (Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 41-2.)

4.   Father filed the transcript of the trial court's fact-finding hearing on June 23, 2025, after the parties had fully briefed the case. On July 3, 2025, we ordered the parties to rebrief their arguments based on the late-filed transcript. In this opinion, we cite the transcript filed June 23, 2025, as “Supp. Tr. Vol. II.”

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.