IN RE: J.H. (Minor Child); (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] C.D. (“Mother”) and J.A.H. (“Father”) (collectively “Parents”) appeal the order of the trial court finding their child, J.H. (“Daughter”) to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Specifically, Parents claim that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's CHINS finding. We disagree and affirm.

Issue

[2] Parents present one issue, which we restate as whether DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court's CHINS finding.

Facts

[3] Mother and Father are the biological parents of Daughter, who was born in October 2024. Mother had a prior child (“Sibling”), who tested positive for methamphetamine when she was born. Sibling was found to be a CHINS in Cause No. 72D01-2202-JC-1, but that case was closed when Sibling was placed under the guardianship of Mother's maternal grandparents (“Grandparents”).

[4] In 2024, Mother was pregnant with Daughter. Although Mother typically lived with Grandparents, Grandparent's home suffered a water leak during the summer of 2024. This required Grandparents to stay in a hotel while the water damage to their home was repaired. During this time, Mother stayed at the hotel with Grandparents, with her mother ¹ in a camper, or with friends.

[5] At Mother's thirty-two-week prenatal appointment, Mother tested positive for controlled substances, including Subutex, THC,² methamphetamine, and ecstasy. Mother claimed she should have tested positive only for Subutex, a drug that is used in place of Suboxone ³ in pregnant women. DCS received a report of Mother's positive drug test, and Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Jamilah Smith spoke with Mother at the facility where Mother received her prenatal care. Mother “didn't know why” she tested positive for these substances. Tr. Vol. II p. 8. Mother also stated that she had no phone, housing, or transportation at the time. Mother was living in Clark County but planned to move to Jackson County to live with Grandparents.

[6] Father too lacked transportation and had no job, but he claimed to be self-employed. Although Father claimed to have housing, DCS received reports that he was living in a shed. Father had an admitted history of substance abuse and admitted using marijuana, but he refused to submit to any drug screens without a court order. The case was transferred to FCM Jeff Aerne, but he was unable to contact Mother at the address or telephone number she had provided to FCM Smith.

[7] After Daughter's birth, DCS filed a petition in November 2024 requesting the trial court to find that Daughter was a CHINS under Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and 31-34-1-10, based on: (1) Daughter's exposure to drugs; (2) Parents’ continued substance abuse; (3) Parents’ unmanaged mental health issues; (4) and Parents’ lack of stable housing. The trial court authorized DCS to remove Daughter from Parents’ care, and Daughter was placed in relative foster care with Grandparents. After receiving permission to do so from the trial court, Mother moved in with Grandparents.

[8] After Daughter's birth, the blood from her umbilical cord was tested for drugs, but the test results, which were received after DCS filed its CHINS petition, were negative. Mother's drug screens at the hospital following Daughter's birth were also negative. Mother did not submit to any DCS drug screens after leaving the hospital. Mother claimed that she had a prescription for Suboxone and that she had to submit to drug screening at the Suboxone clinic once a month in order to receive her prescription. But Mother did not submit the results of any of these drug screens to DCS, nor did she provide any proof that she was participating in any substance abuse treatment other than the Suboxone clinic.

[9] Although Mother attended one DCS team meeting in December 2024, at that meeting, she refused to participate in home-based services or therapy. Mother also failed to maintain contact with FCM Smith, FCM Aerne, or other case workers.

[10] Father made no contact with FCM Aerne, and DCS had no indication of where Father was living. DCS attempted to contact Father multiple times via mail that was addressed to the last address Father had provided. But this mail was repeatedly returned. Father had a history of substance abuse and had prior convictions involving drugs, including a 2014 conviction for possession of methamphetamine and convictions in 2015, 2017, and 2020 for dealing in methamphetamine. Father testified that he completed a six-month treatment program and had not used drugs since, but he admitted to continuing to use marijuana.

[11] The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petition on February 4, 2025, and found Daughter to be a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1.⁴ In so doing, the trial court made the following findings:

3. Mother has had DCS involvement with a prior born child under cause number 72D01-2202-JC-000001. This case involved issues with illegal substance abuse and ended in a Guardianship.

4. Mother tested positive for Methamphetamine, Suboxone, THC and Ecstasy during her pregnancy at her 32 week doctors [sic] appointment.

5. Mother has a significant history of illegal substance use.

6. Father has refused to consistently drug screen for DCS.

7. Mother and Father do not have stable employment.

8. Mother and Father lack housing and stability.

9. Neither Mother nor Father can provide the Child with a safe, sober and stable environment at this time.

10. Neither parent can provide the Child with the appropriate care and/or supervision.

[11]. For the foregoing reasons, the Child is a Child in Need of Services and the coercive intervention of the Court is required to ensure the Child receives the necessary care and/or treatment.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 65-66. On February 27, 2025, the trial court held a dispositional hearing and ordered the Parents to participate in various services. Parents now appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's determination that Daughter is a CHINS. CHINS proceedings are civil actions; thus, “ ‘the 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., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010)); see Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. (citing In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017)). Instead, “[w]e consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We will reverse a CHINS determination only if it is clearly erroneous. D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 578.

[13] “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not [to] punish parents.” N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. A CHINS adjudication is not a determination of parental fault but rather is a determination that a child is in need of services and is unlikely to receive those services without the intervention of the court. Id. at 105. “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child ․ [T]he acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention.” Id. (citations omitted). “A CHINS finding should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290.

[14] DCS must prove three elements for a juvenile court to adjudicate a child to be a CHINS: (1) the child is under the age of eighteen; (2) that one of the different statutory circumstances exist that would make the child a CHINS; and (3) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105.

[15] The trial court found that Daughter is CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, which has been “referred to as the ‘neglect statute.’ ” In re D.F., 83 N.E.3d 789, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). This statute 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.

“Th[is] statute contains three basic elements: (1) the parent's actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child; (2) the child's needs are unmet; and (3) those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475 (citing S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287).

[16] Here, Parents argue that the trial court's CHINS determination is clearly erroneous because Daughter's umbilical cord blood tested negative for drugs at birth and because Mother's drug screen at the time of Daughter's birth was also negative. But this overlooks the fact that Mother had a positive drug screen thirty-two weeks into her pregnancy. This screen tested positive not only for Subutex, for which Mother claimed to have a prescription, but also THC, methamphetamine, and ecstasy. Mother had no explanation for why she tested positive for these illicit drugs. After the one negative drug screen following Daughter's birth, Mother did not participate in any drug screening through DCS, and her claims of negative drug screenings at the Suboxone clinic were uncorroborated. Mother also had a prior CHINS case involving Sibling, who was born positive for methamphetamine. And Father also has a long history of drug use and criminal activity for dealing in methamphetamine; he admitted that he continues to use marijuana. He too refused to submit to drug screens unless ordered by the court.

[17] Given Parents’ long history of illicit drug use, Mother's positive drug screen late in her pregnancy, and Father's admission to using illicit drugs, the trial court was rightly concerned with the ability of Parents to maintain a drug-free environment for Daughter's upbringing. See In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561, 563-64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (noting the twofold danger of parental drug use—the child seeing the parent using drugs and the parent “essentially abandon[ing]” the child “without any responsible supervision”) (citing White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind. 1989)).

[18] Mother also argues that she had suitable housing, but she admittedly was living with others without stable housing during her pregnancy with Daughter. And Mother was wholly reliant on her Grandparents to provide for her and Daughter. Mother had no job, and Grandparents’ home was still under renovation at the time of the fact-finding hearing. Father was living with his sister and did not seek custody of Daughter. DCS also had trouble contacting both Parents, and Mother refused to participate in any services when offered them.

[19] Under these facts and circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court's determination that Daughter is a CHINS was clearly erroneous. DCS presented evidence that Parents’ actions seriously endangered Daughter, Daughter's needs were unmet, and the coercive intervention of the court was necessary. Parents’ argument to the contrary is little more than a request that we consider their testimony as credible, reweigh the evidence, and come to a different conclusion than did the trial court.⁵ This we cannot do. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475.

Conclusion

[20] DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that Daughter is a CHINS. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgment.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother's mother also lived with Grandparents but stayed in a camper while the home was repaired.

2.   THC is the active component of marijuana.

3.   Mother frequented a Suboxone clinic.

4.   This statute provides that a child is a CHINS if 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 ․ to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision” when the parent is “financially able to do so” or “due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent ․ to seek financial or other reasonable means to do so,” and the child needs “care, treatment, or rehabilitation that ․ the child is not receiving; and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.” I.C. § 31-34-1-1.

5.   We find In re E.Y., 126 N.E.3d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), which Parents cite, to be readily distinguishable. In that case, a panel of this Court reversed the trial court's CHINS finding where both parents tested negative for drug use, were gainfully employed, lived in an appropriate residence, and carried insurance that covered their therapy sessions and the child's medical care. Id. at 877. The mother in that case sought therapy to help her with her issues from a prior abusive relationship, and the father voluntarily participated in a batterer's intervention program. Id. Here, although Mother tested negative for drug use at the time of Daughter's birth, she had tested positive only a few weeks prior and had no explanation for her positive drug test.

Tavitas, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Felix concur. Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.