IN RE: K.K. and K.L. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] E.M. (“Mother”) is the parent of K.K. (d/o/b October 25, 2016) and K.L. (d/o/b March 21, 2014) (collectively, “the Children”).¹ In October of 2024, after receiving and investigating reports of Mother's substance abuse and neglect of the Children, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) petitioned the juvenile court to find the Children to be children in need of services (“CHINS”). After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found the Children to be CHINS. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the coercive intervention of the juvenile court is necessary to assure that the Children receive the care that they require. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2017, DCS first became involved with Mother and the Children when K.K. was born drug exposed and allegations of neglect of K.L. were substantiated. On September 5, 2019, the Children were found to be CHINS due to Mother's psychiatric issues and substance abuse but were returned to her care, with the wardship ending in November of 2020.

[3] On September 26, 2024, DCS family case manager James McAuliffe responded to a report that the Children had been neglected due to Mother's drug abuse and that she had driven while impaired, “falling asleep in someone's driveway.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 10. The source of the report indicated that Mother had been using suboxone recreationally and expressed concern that she had also been using methamphetamine. On October 2, 2024, DCS received a report that Mother had tested positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine while caring for A.P., Children's two-year-old half-sibling, and had driven off before law enforcement could be contacted.

[4] On October 7, 2024, the Scott Circuit Court found probable cause to believe that Mother had committed domestic battery against A.P.’s father. The same day, police responded to an automobile crash and found Mother sitting on the ground, crying, next to a white SUV which had flipped over. Mother admitted to being intoxicated, and the State charged her with Level 6 felony driving while intoxicated. On October 20, 2024, DCS received a report that Mother had walked into the home of A.P.’s father and had committed a second act of domestic battery by striking him with a closed fist while holding A.P. The State charged Mother with Level 6 felony domestic battery.

[5] The Children were removed from Mother's care with the assistance of law enforcement, and, on October 23, 2024, DCS petitioned the juvenile court to find them to be CHINS based on Mother's unstable behavior and use of alcohol and illicit substances.² At a visit on November 15, 2024, Mother appeared to be impaired. The visit supervisor later indicated that Mother had been “hyper” and fidgety. Supp. Tr. Vol. II p. 49. Mother denied being under the influence, became upset when confronted, and ended the visit early. Mother also tested positive for alcohol use after a visit on November 15.

[6] Shortly after the November 15 visit, Mother began inpatient treatment at Recovery Villages pursuant to a court order in one of her criminal cases. Mother left treatment at Recovery Villages in December, but neither completed the program successfully nor signed the necessary releases so that DCS could monitor her progress.

[7] At a team meeting held on December 18, 2024, Mother admitted she had used marijuana the day before. After leaving Recovery Villages, but before a hearing on January 16, 2025, Mother submitted to five drug screens, no-showed twice, and in one instance refused to answer the door despite requesting that DCS come to drug screen her at home. A substance-abuse assessment recommended that Mother complete individual therapy, individual and group addictions counseling, case management services, life skills training, medication management, and monitoring.

[8] Mother testified at the fact-finding hearing on January 24, 2025, that she had been attending individual and group counseling to address her past traumas, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Mother also testified that she had been attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, recovery coaching, and medication management. Mother indicated that she would continue to attend those services without DCS assistance and expressed a belief that she would maintain her sobriety.

[9] Mother admitted she had made mistakes “leaving my relationship” and knew that alcohol was a big problem for her and driving while intoxicated was a mistake, but she did not “feel like an arrest should prevent me from seeing my children[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 13. Mother testified she had found rehabilitation services “on [her] own” but then agreed she had, in fact, worked with her probation officer to find them. Tr. Vol. II p. 13.

[10] The juvenile court concluded that Mother's criminal history and pending criminal charges demonstrated a significant instability related to alcohol and substance abuse and that she was unable to be a sober caregiver for Children. The juvenile court noted evidence that Mother had struggled with drug and alcohol abuse since at least 2019, based on her convictions that year for resisting law enforcement and operating while intoxicated. The juvenile court found that Mother's continued commissions of crimes while on release demonstrated disdain for the court's authority. Moreover, the juvenile court concluded that the current behaviors Mother admitted were endangering the Children were the same that had necessitated services through the 2019 CHINS proceedings. The juvenile court concluded thar Mother's recent compliance with services was insufficient to establish that the coercive intervention of the court was no longer needed. The juvenile court found that the Children were CHINS.

[11] On March 13, 2025, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing and concluded that Children needed to reside in a home with caregivers who were free from abuse of any kind and to reside in a safe and secure and nurturing home environment. The juvenile court ordered Mother to cooperate with DCS, the court-appointed special advocate, and service providers; not use, consume or possess illegal controlled substances or alcohol; complete a substance-abuse assessment and follow all recommendations; submit to random drug screens; complete a psychological evaluation and successfully complete any recommendations; cooperate and complete all recommendations as a result of any domestic-violence assessment program; and participate in twelve weeks of individual domestic-violence classes.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Mother contends that DCS failed to produce evidence sufficient to sustain the juvenile court's finding that the Children were CHINS. 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.

[13] If the juvenile court finds that the evidence satisfies subsections (1) and (2)(A) of the CHINS statute, it must determine whether court intervention is necessary to safeguard the child, pursuant to subsection (2)(B). The same evidence upon which the juvenile court determined that the parents had injured or endangered a child may also support a finding 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).

[14] 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). Mother contends only that DCS failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that court intervention was necessary.

[15] We have little trouble concluding that ample evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that coercive court intervention was warranted. Mother's issues are long-standing, and her compliance with services has been—at best—recent and sporadic, her sobriety far from assured. As already explained, Mother has an extensive history of substance abuse, neglect of dependents, and criminal activity dating back at least five years. As for her compliance with services, the record indicates that Mother had entered Recovery Village on November 25, 2024 (pursuant to a court order), and that her discharge had occurred on December 15, having failed to successfully complete the program. Just two days later, Mother used marijuana, as she later admitted. Moreover, on January 17, 2025, Mother had tested positive for alcohol use, and, while a confirmation test had found the amount of alcohol to be under the cut-off amount, that did not mean that the sample had indicated an absence of alcohol consumption. This drug screen had occurred one day after a hearing in the CHINS proceeding involving A.P. and one week before the fact-finding hearing in this case.

[16] The record is also devoid of any evidence that Mother has been able to comply with ordered services in a sustained fashion. Mother's substance-abuse assessment led to recommendations that Mother complete individual psychotherapy, addictions counseling both individually and with groups, case-management services, life-skills training, and medication management and monitoring. As of the fact-finding on January 24, DCS had just made referrals for these services three days previously, meaning that there had not been “enough time yet to see if she's complying with those or if she's not.” Tr. Vol. II p. 23.

[17] To summarize, Mother has a somewhat lengthy history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and associated criminal behavior, which has resulted in multiple DCS interventions and criminal charges. On the other hand, there is but limited evidence that Mother has complied with services for any significant amount of time to address her issues, and even that has been accomplished through court intervention. Mother's argument that the coercive intervention of the court is not needed is nothing more than a request that this court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. The evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary.

[18] We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Both of the Children's biological fathers are deceased.

2.   DCS also alleged that A.P. was a CHINS, in cause number 39C01-2410-JC-63. A.P. was ultimately found not to be a CHINS.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and DeBoer concur. Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.