IN RE: BR.G. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Jasper Circuit Court adjudicated A.G.’s (“Mother's”) and J.G.’s (“Father's”) (collectively “Parents”) three children as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Parents appeal and argue that the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children are CHINS.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Parents have three children: B.G. born on May 12, 2019, A.G. born on July 9, 2020, and Br.G born on February 28, 2022. In November 2024, DCS received a report that the two oldest children were sent to school with dirty clothes and poor hygiene. Appellant J.G.’s App. Vol. 2, p. 17. A DCS family case manager interviewed Parents and observed the children at their leased residence on North McKinley Avenue in Rensselaer. Mother admitted that the home had no electricity. The two oldest children told the family case manager that they had been taking showers at their paternal grandparents’ home.

[4] On November 21, 2024, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Parents’ rental home. The officers found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia during the search, and some of the items found were accessible to the children. Parents and the children were not present when the officers executed the warrant. The oldest two children were at school, and the youngest child was in paternal grandmother's care.

[5] Both Mother and Father were arrested later that same day, and the State charged both parents with neglect of a dependent, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a syringe, all as Level 6 felonies. The State also charged each parent with three misdemeanors. Law enforcement officers believed that Parents were living inside the home based on mail and other items observed during the search.¹

[6] The children were removed from Parents’ care because Parents were in jail. The children were placed in their paternal grandparents’ home. While that home was generally suitable, the home lacked adequate sleeping arrangements for the children. When Parents were released from jail, they expressed their intent to live with paternal grandparents. Therefore, the children were removed from that placement and placed in their maternal grandparents’ home.

[7] On November 25, DCS filed petitions alleging that the children were CHINS under the neglect statute, Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. In addition to Parents’ arrests, the petition noted that DCS already had an open assessment for neglect “due to the children appearing dirty at school and the home lacking utilities.” Appellant A.G.’s App. Vol. 2, pp. 29-30, 32-33, 35-36. DCS was also investigating reports of Parents’ drug use in the prior, open assessment including Parents’ refusal to drug screen.

[8] The trial court held the fact-finding hearing on March 19, 2025. During the hearing, Parents claimed that they were not living in their leased premises when the DCS investigation began but with paternal grandparents. The family case manager testified that she spoke to Father after he had been arrested, and Father stated that the drugs found during the search belonged to him. Father claimed that Mother had no knowledge that the drugs were in the house. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 63. At the hearing, Father denied making that statement. Id. at 104. Parents had also completed a parenting assessment but refused to participate in recommended services unless those services were court-ordered. Parents did not complete the requested substance abuse assessment. Parents’ criminal charges remained pending on the date of the fact-finding hearing. Mother also had pending forgery and fraud charges. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 22.

[9] On May 2, the trial court issued orders adjudicating the children as CHINS. In its orders, the court found that Parents’ claims that the family was not living in the leased residence on the day the home was searched were not credible. Appellant A.G.’s App. Vol. 2, pp. 40, 45, 50. On June 3, the court issued dispositional orders and ordered Parents to participate in many services including random drug screens, parenting assessments and following all ensuing recommendations, substance abuse assessments and following all treatment recommendations, and to participate in visitation with the children.

[10] Mother and Father separately filed their notices of appeal. DCS filed a motion to consolidate the appeals, which our court granted on August 4, 2025.

Discussion and Decision

[11] In her brief, Mother argues that DCS failed to prove that the family was living in the home on the date of the search and failed to prove that Mother knew there were drugs in the home. Mother claims that the evidence established that she can safely care for the children, and therefore, the coercive intervention of the court was not necessary. Father contends that DCS failed to prove that he had endangered or neglected his children.² In support of his argument, he observes that his visitation with his children was appropriate, DCS did not present evidence that Father used methamphetamine while in the children's presence, and his drug swab taken at the fact-finding hearing was negative for illegal substances.

[12] Our standard of review is well settled:

“[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). 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., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–78 (Ind. 2017).

[13] 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.

[14] The focus of a CHINS determination is on the status of the child, not on an act or omission of the parent. See, e.g., In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105–06; In re S.C., 96 N.E.3d 579, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A child therefore cannot be a CHINS “based solely on conditions that no longer exist.” In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). So, before entering a CHINS adjudication, our trial courts should consider the child's status at the time the case is heard and the finding is made. See D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580; In re A.R., 121 N.E.3d 598, 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Doing so avoids punishing a parent for a lapse in judgment or a past mistake when that parent has already taken corrective action. D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 581. These considerations are vital in this context, as “a CHINS adjudication may have long-lasting collateral consequences for the family.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1285 (Ind. 2014).

[15] DCS presented evidence establishing that Parents and their children lived in the home that was searched in November 2024. During that search, law enforcement officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia in locations that were accessible to the children. The home was dirty and was not connected to utilities. Prior to the search, DCS had received a report that the two older children had come to school with poor hygiene and were dressed in dirty clothes. And DCS was investigating claims that Parents were using illegal substances.

[16] As a result of the search, the State charged Mother and Father with three felonies each. These charges were still pending on the date of the fact-finding hearing. Parents submitted to drug swabs at the fact-finding hearing, and Mother tested positive for THC. Father did not test positive for any illegal substances on that date.

[17] DCS proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Parents endangered their young children by exposing them to an environment of illegal drug use, which has also resulted in Parents’ pending criminal charges.³ It was within the trial court's discretion to weigh Parents’ credibility and to disregard their claims concerning where they lived or whether they knew the drugs were in their home. Parents have not sought substance abuse treatment, and Mother tested positive for THC on the date of the fact-finding hearing.⁴ For all of these reasons, we conclude that DCS proved that the children are CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1.

[18] We therefore affirm the trial court's orders adjudicating Parents’ children as CHINS.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   An individual named Dustyn Jones was inside the home when the officers executed the search warrant. Jones was also in possession of drugs and needles, and he was arrested as well.

2.   Father also argues that the trial court applied the wrong burden of proof. To the contrary, the trial court's orders adjudicating the children as CHINS establish that the trial court appropriately applied the standards required under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. We will not conclude that the trial court applied the wrong burden of proof simply because the court briefly referred to the “rebuttable presumption” set forth in Indiana Code section 31-34-12-4, which concerns CHINS proceedings when a child is injured. See Tr. Vol. 2, p. 14.

3.   Father attempts to analogize this case to the mother's circumstances in Perrine v. Marion County Office of Child Services, 866 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). But that case involved one single admitted use of methamphetamine outside the presence of mother's fourteen-year-old child. Id. at 277. Here, law enforcement officers found drugs and paraphernalia in the home, and those items were accessible to Parents’ three young children. Moreover, the family's home in this case was not connected to utilities.

4.   DCS presented evidence that Parents were compliant with random drug screens, and service providers had “concerns” after receiving the results of those screens, but Parents failed to participate in services to address those concerns. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 26-27.

Mathias, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and May, J., concur.