IN RE: A.S. and M.S. (Children in Need of Services) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] A.B. (“Mother”) and N.S. (“Father,” and together with Mother, “Parents”) appeal the trial court's determination that their minor children, A.S. and M.S. (“Children”), are children in need of services (“CHINS”). We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Parents are the parents of A.S., born in July 2009, and M.S., born in April 2012. On May 30, 2024, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition under separate cause numbers alleging Children were CHINS. DCS asserted that it received a report on April 16, 2024, alleging that there was a domestic violence incident between Parents when a battery occurred in the living room of the home in Children's presence, Mother “sustained marks and complained of pain,” Children were not injured, and Father was heavily intoxicated and arrested. Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 14. DCS also asserted it received a report on May 12, 2024, alleging that Mother posted a video on Facebook showing Parents were together despite a no contact order and Parents appeared to be on drugs. DCS further alleged that Mother uses pain killers, she “just got out of the hospital about three to four months ago for a fentanyl overdose,” and Father “uses Klonopin, ‘downers,’ and alcohol.” Id.

[3] On June 10, 2024, the court held an initial hearing at which Parents denied the allegations. On July 29, 2024, the court held a factfinding hearing. DCS presented the testimony of Kelsey Winters, a DCS assessment worker, Tiffany Quilter, a DCS permanency worker, and Amy Forshee, a case manager ¹ employed by Firefly Children and Family Alliance. Parents’ counsel introduced and the court admitted a document titled “Global Plea Agreement,” which was dated May 16, 2024, and which stated that Father agreed to plead guilty to “Count I: Provocation LIO, A Class C Infraction: Count I: Invasion of Privacy a Class A misdemeanor” under cause number 48C05-2404-F6-1177 (“Cause No. 1177”).² Exhibits Volume at 3 (some capitalization omitted). The plea agreement also provided that, “[a]t the time of taking the guilty plea, and again at the time of the Defendant's sentencing, the State of Indiana will recommend the sentence to be imposed as follows: Defendant shall be sentenced to 180 days formal probation; [no contact order] to be vacated.” Id. at 4.

[4] After DCS rested,³ Parents’ counsel moved for “a directed verdict,” and the court denied the motion. Transcript Volume II at 59. Parents’ counsel presented the testimony of A.S. and Parents. Parents’ counsel moved for “a directed verdict,” and the court denied the motion. Transcript Volume II at 59. A.S. testified that she attended high school, that she attended therapy through Centerstone for the previous two years, and that Mother enlisted her in that therapy. She also testified that DCS did not offer her any services, that she had a bed, food to eat, and clothes, and that she was not scared of Parents. On September 25, 2024, the court entered an order adjudicating Children as CHINS under Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1.

[5] On October 23, 2024, the court held a dispositional hearing. DCS did not present evidence. The court and Parents’ counsel questioned Family Case Manager Sara Day (“FCM Day”). Parents’ counsel also presented the testimony of Parents and Kristy Fierce, a therapist employed by Firefly.⁴ After the presentation of evidence, the court stated:

[T]he Court's going to enter the order as recommended ․ at this time, folks. I do think that you're doing a good job. I want you to keep up the good work. [I]f you continue down the path that you're on right now, ․ this case will be over, ․ sooner than if you ․ slip up and ․ miss what you're supposed to do, okay. So just keep doing what you're doing right now. [W]e're only a month out from ․ the Fact-Finds, so I think it would be premature to close the case at this point. [B]ut you're on the right ․ track to get this thing going and ․ get [DCS] and this Court out of your life as soon as possible.

Id. at 94-95.

[6] That same day the court entered a dispositional order requiring Parents to: contact the family case manager every week; notify the family case manager of any changes in address; allow the family case manager or other service providers to make announced or unannounced visits to the home; keep all appointments with any service provider; sign releases necessary for the family case manager to monitor compliance; ensure that Children were not removed from the county for a period of more than seventy-two hours without the specific consent of the family case manager; maintain suitable, safe, and stable housing; secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income; ensure that Children were properly clothed, fed, and supervised; not use or consume illegal controlled substances; complete an assessment with a family preservation service provider and participate in all service recommendations; meet all medical and mental health needs of Children; not commit any acts of domestic violence; and ensure that Children “and/or” Parents become engaged in an individual counseling program. Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 32.⁵

Discussion

[7] Parents contend that their actions leading to the CHINS petitions being filed did not seriously endanger or impair Children's conditions and Children's needs were not unmet. They argue they had already obtained therapy, medical and mental health treatment, and service participation on their own well before DCS filed the petitions. They argue that “DCS made no referrals at the outset of the matter, and never made a referral itself for Family Therapy, which it seemed to argue at great lengths for only at the trial held three and a half months after engaging with the family.” Appellants’ Brief at 20. They also point out that the dispositional order “called only for family preservation services which Parents had been doing voluntarily since early June of 2024, and for individual therapy, the very thing that all members of the family had been doing well before the CHINS case existed at all.” Id. at 20-21.

[8] In reviewing a trial court's determination that a child is in need of services, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. at 1287. As to issues covered by findings, we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We review the remaining issues under the general judgment standard, under which a judgment will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id.

[9] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[n]ot every endangered child is a child in need of services, permitting the State's parens patriae intrusion into the ordinarily private sphere of the family.” Id. Rather, a CHINS adjudication under Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 “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.” Id. Specifically, 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.

(Emphasis added). “That final element guards against unwarranted State interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families ‘where parents lack the ability to provide for their children,’ not merely where they ‘encounter difficulty in meeting a child's needs.’ ” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287 (quoting Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526, 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)). When determining whether the “coercive intervention” of the court is necessary, “courts ‘should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’ ” In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017) (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290 (citation omitted)). “Doing so avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them.” Id. at 581 (citing In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1289-1290). “[A] mere cause for concern ‘is not the touchstone of a CHINS determination, and an unspecified concern about what might happen in the future is insufficient in itself to carry the State's burden of proof.’ ” Matter of A.R. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 121 N.E.3d 598, 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting L.N. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 118 N.E.3d 43, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)).

[10] The record reveals that, during the July 29, 2024 hearing, Winters, the DCS assessment worker, indicated that Children had “everything that they” needed at the home and were participating in a therapeutic service that Parents had “got them involved in.” Transcript Volume II at 25-26. She stated that the no contact order was “dropped at the end of May.” Id. at 26. She testified that she did not make any referrals for services for the family during the time she was involved because Mother “had indicated that they had everything that they needed and didn't feel like any services that we could implement would be beneficial.” Id. at 27. When asked if it would be fair to say that she did not place any referrals for services because she agreed with Mother's view, she answered, “I don't know that I necessarily agreed, but Mother didn't see the need for it. So, I didn't pursue it anything further.” Id. She also indicated that Children remained in the home. She testified that she “put in a referral for family preservation services” at the end of May and that she placed that referral because it is “a typical service that DCS recommends when children are either in the home for an In Home CHINS or through [an] Informal Adjustment.” Id at 28.

[11] Quilter, the DCS permanency worker, testified that Parents had services in place that DCS did not refer, including therapy for Children, therapy for the Mother, as well as anger management through Father's probation. When asked by Parents’ counsel if Parents had been “fully compliant” with DCS, she answered, “Ah with me, yes. Correct.” Id. at 41. She acknowledged that Parents were “not ordered to do any of these services” and had enlisted the help of therapists prior to DCS becoming involved. Id.

[12] To the extent Quilter testified that she believed family therapy would be beneficial for the family, she also testified that she had not made any referral for family therapy and had been told that “Amy made the referral through Firefly for family therapy.”⁶ Id. at 36. Forshee, the case manager, testified that she had “never spoken to [Mother] about family therapy,” she believed family therapy would be beneficial for the family but she had not made a referral, and Quilter had asked her on the day of the factfinding hearing if she had referred the family for family therapy. Id. at 49. When asked if Children “have been maintained in the home up until this point without any type of family therapy,” Quilter answered affirmatively. Id. at 39. We also note that the dispositional order did not require Parents to engage in family therapy. Rather, it required only individual therapy, which Parents and Children were already attending.

[13] At the October 23, 2024 dispositional hearing, FCM Day testified that Parents had “actually both been participating in all the services recommended in the [pre-dispositional] report already.” Id. at 83. Mother detailed the services in which she was participating. Parents’ counsel asked Mother if she had been “doing everything” that DCS had asked, and Mother answered affirmatively. Id. at 86. Mother also indicated that Father was “going to anger management.” Id. at 87. Father testified that he had been doing everything DCS had asked and had been compliant with his probation. Further, Fierce, the therapist employed by Firefly, testified that she had been working with the family since July 18, 2024, the “intake date.” Id. at 91. When asked if she had any concerns with the way Parents interact with Children, she answered, “No, absolutely not. They're here every time because ․ I have to check that off on the safety on the risk the safety risk․ I see no risk factors in the home whatsoever.” Id. Fierce also stated, “I see no need for DCS to be involved․ I think they all agree that therapy is something that they want to do.” Id. When asked if she had any doubt that Parents would continue with therapy for themselves and Children, she answered, “No doubt whatsoever that they ․ would continue.” Id. at 92. When asked if she felt everyone was “safe and sound in that home,” she answered affirmatively. Id.

[14] Mindful of the Indiana Supreme Court's statement that “[t]he intrusion of a CHINS judgment ․ must be reserved for families who cannot meet those needs without coercion—not those who merely have difficulty doing so,” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1285, and under these circumstances, we conclude that DCS presented insufficient evidence that Children needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that was unlikely to be provided or accepted without coercive intervention of the court. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290 (“And though the State's intervention enabled some of [the mother's] progress, such as the ability to renovate the house while the children were out of her care, none of the State's actions compelled her accomplishments. Though the evidence shows she had difficulty completing the last step of medical training, we cannot say she was unwilling or unable to do so without the court's compulsion ․ and so the State's coercive intervention into the family cannot stand.”) (Citation omitted); Matter of A.R., 121 N.E.3d at 605 (holding that DCS failed to present evidence that children needed care that mother was unlikely to provide without the coercive intervention of the court and reversing the trial court's judgment); Matter of E.K., 83 N.E.3d 1256, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding that, “[e]ven if this family needed help to address E.K.’s behavior and [father's] mental health, the parents were readily accepting that help and there is no evidence that they needed to be coerced by a court into accepting such help,” and reversing the trial court's finding that child was a CHINS), trans. denied.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's CHINS adjudication.

[16] Reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   When asked for her job title, Forshee answered, “I am a case manager of domestic violence, um family preservation, fatherhood engagement, and home-based services.” Transcript Volume II at 44.

2.   Indiana's Odyssey Case Management System indicates that the State initially charged Father with domestic battery as a level 6 felony related to his conduct on April 16, 2024, under Cause No. 1177. Odyssey shows that the trial court in Cause No. 1177 entered an order vacating the no contact order on May 16, 2024.

3.   The record reveals that DCS did not introduce evidence that Parents were on drugs in the video posted on Facebook, that Mother used pain killers or fentanyl, or that Father used Klonopin.

4.   DCS's counsel did not have any questions for Parents or Fierce.

5.   On January 17, 2025, DCS requested that the court close the CHINS cases, and the court granted the requests. We decline to find this case moot. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290 (Ind. 2014) (declining to find a closed CHINS case moot and observing that “a CHINS finding can relax the State's burden for terminating parental rights,” “a prior CHINS finding may have adverse job consequences as well, such as precluding [mother] from employment with any DCS contractor,” and a CHINS finding may preclude her from becoming a licensed foster parent).

6.   When asked “who is Amy,” Quilter answered, “She is a family preservation worker.” Transcript Volume II at 36. The mention of “Amy” was likely a reference to Amy Forshee.

Brown, Judge.

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