IN RE: JE.H. and Ja.H. (Minor Children) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] J.W. (“Mother”) appeals the adjudication of her children, Je.H. and Ja.H. (collectively, “Children”), as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Mother argues the trial court's findings do not support its conclusions both that Children were seriously endangered and the coercive intervention of the trial court was required. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother ¹ is the mother of Je.H., born May 2008, and Ja.H., born May 2012.² Children lived with Mother and A.H. On October 24, 2024, DCS received a report that alleged twelve-year-old Ja.H. “had what appeared to be burn marks across her chest just below her collar bone.” (Tr. Vol. II at 41.) Family Case Manager Valerie Eiler (“FCM Eiler”) went to the family's home to investigate and determined the marks were hickeys. However, during her visit, FCM Eiler noticed Mother was “very erratic ․ [t]alking to herself, [and] spinning around in circles.” (Id. at 42.) Mother encouraged a dog to bite FCM Eiler. Mother also refused to sign any paperwork that FCM Eiler presented to her. FCM Eiler left Mother's home after Mother called her a “b*tch” and “lunged at [her].” (Id.)

[3] On November 4, 2024, DCS received another report about the family alleging Mother “had been diagnosed with schizophrenia previously and her psychotic symptom[s] had recently been increasing[,] rendering her unable to care for her 3 children.” (App. Vol. II at 81) (footnote added). FCM Eiler and FCM Kassandra Burchett (“FCM Burchett”) visited the house with law enforcement officers to investigate the allegation. FCM Eiler observed Mother “talking to herself.” (Tr. Vol. II at 43.) At one point, Mother “encourage[ed] [Je.H.] to perform blowjobs on [Je.H.’s] boyfriend” and “[m]ade very inappropriate comments to the officers that were there[.]” (Id.)

[4] The next day FCM Eiler returned to Mother's house and observed that Mother was “calm [and] collected.” (Id.) Mother told FCM Eiler about her mental health struggles and admitted using methamphetamine and suboxone without a prescription in recent weeks. DCS and Mother entered an Informal Adjustment (“IA”) that required Mother to complete services to address her substance abuse and mental health issues, as well as submit to random drug screens.

[5] At some point during the IA, FCM Burchett went to Mother's home to collect a drug screen. Mother refused the drug screen and told FCM Burchett to “get the F out of the house[.]” (Id. at 122.) In December 2024, the Bowen Center, where Mother had been submitting drug tests, reported to DCS that Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on December 9, 2024. Children told FCM Burchett that Mother was sleeping “all the time.” (App. Vol. II at 82.) FCM Burchett also reported Mother's “continued behavior ․ was consistent with what we were seeing upon the first day that we got into the assessment with mental health.” (Tr. Vol. II at 123.) On December 20, 2024, DCS removed Children from Mother's care and placed them with their maternal grandmother, where they have remained throughout the proceedings.

[6] A few days later, DCS filed petitions alleging Children were CHINS. On April 1, 2025, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing regarding the CHINS petitions, and the next day it issued an order adjudicating Children as CHINS based on Mother's unaddressed substance abuse and mental health problems. The trial court held a dispositional hearing and ordered her to participate in several services related to her substance abuse and mental health.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Mother argues the trial court's findings do not support its conclusions that Children were 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 Children were 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)). “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not [to] punish parents.” Id. at 475 (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106) (brackets added in Matter of N.E.).

[8] When, as here, a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law in a CHINS decision, “[w]e may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous.” In re Des. B., 2 N.E.3d 828, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “In our review, we first consider whether the evidence supports the factual findings. Second, we consider whether the findings support the judgment. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “We accept unchallenged findings as true.” Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[9] Initially, Mother contends the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that Children were seriously endangered because of her substance abuse or mental health issues. Mother does not challenge the truth or accuracy of the trial court's findings and thus we accept them as true. See id. (appellate court accepts unchallenged findings as true). The trial court made several findings outlining Mother's behavior during home visits by FCM Eiler and FCM Burnett. It found that during the first visit to Mother's home, Mother “appeared to be disoriented and under the influence. She was behaving erratically and talking to people who were not present.” (App. Vol. II at 77.) The trial court found that, during the second visit to Mother's home a few days later, “Mother's behavior was observed to be similar to her behavior during the first trip although she appeared to be more erratic than the first trip.” (Id. at 78.) The trial court found Mother made “inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to one of the officers” and she “suggested that one of her daughters give oral sex to the daughter's boyfriend, who was also present.” (Id.) The trial court also found that during both visits “Mother was uncooperative and acted aggressively.” (Id.) The trial court also made multiple findings about Mother's use of suboxone without a prescription and her use of methamphetamine.

[10] Related to Mother's argument that the trial court did not indicate how her behavior affected Children, the trial court found:

Mother does not deny she has a history of using illegal substances including methamphetamine and heroin. However, she appears to not recognize that this is an on-going problem that substantially affects not only her but [Children].

* * * * *

Mother's lack of insight into how her mental health and substance abuse issues affect not only her but [Children] is alarming. That is clearly not in [Children's] best interests.

(Id. at 78-79.) Based thereon, the trial court concluded:

It should go without saying that [Children], whose primary caretaker (i.e. Mother) is unable to supply them with necessary supervision due to her serious mental health issues coupled with serious substance abuse issues are children whose mental and/or physical health is seriously impaired or endangered.

(Id. at 79.)

[11] The trial court outlined Mother's behavior during two home visits, both of which were in the presence of at least one of the Children. While the court did not find specific examples of incidents during which Children were in danger due to Mother's behavior, the trial court noted Mother's lack of insight into the role her substance abuse and mental health issues play in Children's lives. Because Mother was Children's primary caregiver and she exhibited erratic behavior due to drug use and/or mental health issues, we conclude the trial court's findings support its conclusion that Children's mental or physical health was seriously endangered because of Mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. See, e.g., In re D.F., 83 N.E.3d 789, 797 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (children's mental or physical health seriously impaired based on mother's untreated mental illnesses and substance abuse).

[12] Mother also asserts the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that the coercive intervention of the trial court is required. Regarding this issue, the trial court found:

[During an investigatory home visit] Mother reported she had mental health issues, had used methamphetamine and needed help. Because of Mother's improved behavior and recognition that she needed help, DCS suggested the matter be handled through an Informal Adjustment (“IA”). Mother agreed, believing services would be helpful. Had she engaged in services, they likely would have [been].

Mother signed the IA. Some of the conditions of allowing [Children] to remain in Mother's home required Mother to allow DCS access to her home and for Mother to submit to drug testing.

* * * * *

After Mother failed to comply with the terms of the IA, the IA was terminated, [Children] were removed from Mother's home and these proceedings were commenced.

* * * * *

To Mother's credit, with the assistance of a friend, she entered in-patient treatment for her mental health issues before the DCS’[s] involvement. Her last stay lasted eight or nine days. Obviously, that in-patient treatment did not adequately address Mother's mental health issues. It is not clear if Mother received any treatment while in-patient for her substance abuse.

* * * * *

[After DCS filed its CHINS petitions,] Mother was offered services and flippantly responded that she does [not] need “classes” because those are for kids. Mother also indicated she believes that programs such as NA or AA are, essentially, a joke.

To date, whatever services Mother has received, in-patient or otherwise, have not been of substantial benefit to her.

(Id. at 78-79.) The trial court also noted Mother had tested positive for illegal substances multiple times during the pendency of the proceedings. Based on those findings, the trial court concluded, “the coercive intervention of the [trial court] is necessary to provide the entire family with the necessary care, treatment and/or rehabilitation that is needed and is unlikely to get absent the [trial court's] involvement.” (Id. at 79.)

[13] The trial court found Mother had unsuccessfully attempted services prior to DCS involvement. As part of the IA, DCS offered Mother services, which she did not complete. After DCS filed the CHINS petitions, Mother was offered services and Mother refused to engage in those services, speaking of them disparagingly. The trial court found Mother had not pursued treatment on her own after the CHINS petitions were filed and she had been unsuccessful in earlier treatment. Thus, the trial court's findings support its conclusion that the coercive intervention of the trial court was necessary to ensure Mother and Children received and engaged in services to achieve reunification. See, e.g., K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (coercive intervention of trial court necessary based, in part, on parents’ failure to address domestic violence and substance abuse problems).

Conclusion

[14] The trial court's findings support its conclusion that Children were seriously endangered by Mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. Further, the trial court's findings support its conclusion that Mother and Children would not receive the necessary services to address these issues without the trial court's intervention. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's adjudication of Children as CHINS.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother has two older children, Jal.H. and A.H. Jal.H. is an adult. A.H. was almost eighteen years old at the time of these proceedings.

2.   Je.H.’s father is C.H., and he admitted Je.H. was a CHINS. Ja.H.’s father is T.W., and he also admitted Ja.H. was a CHINS. They do not participate in this appeal.

May, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.