IN RE: A.A. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] C.A. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order adjudicating his three daughters, N.A. (“N.A.”), J.A. (“J.A.”), and A.A. (“A.A.”), (collectively “the children”), to be Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Father specifically argues that the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating the children to be CHINS. Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating the children to be CHINS.

Facts

[3] The evidence most favorable to the CHINS adjudication reveals that Father and S.A. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”) are the parents of N.A., who was born in August 2013, J.A., who was born in January 2015, and A.A., who was born in August 2017. Parents lived together with the children until 2020, when Parents divorced.

[4] From 2020 until 2022, the children lived with Mother in several states, including New York, Georgia, and Florida. Departments of child services in each of these states removed the children from Mother. The last removal occurred in Florida in 2022, when Mother attempted to drown the children. Father obtained custody of the children in 2022, and they have lived with Father and P.W. (“Stepmother”) in Indiana since that time.

[5] In 2023, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) twice investigated reports that Stepmother had physically abused the children. Both reports were unsubstantiated.

[6] In September 2024, DCS received a report that Stepmother had physically abused A.A. A DCS assessment case manager (“the assessment case manager”) met with A.A. at school and noticed that A.A. had a black eye. The assessment case manager took photographs of A.A.’s eye and asked Father to take A.A. to Riley Hospital for Children for a Pediatric and Diagnostics Services examination (“PEDS examination”). When DCS receives a report of an injured child, DCS typically refers the child for a PEDS examination and does not remove the child from his or her parents if the PEDS team concludes that the injury was caused by an accident. Although Father stated that Stepmother had accidentally given A.A. a black eye, DCS removed the children from Father and filed a petition alleging that they were CHINS. The petition specifically alleged as follows:

b. On or about September 30, 2024, [A.A.] was observed to have a black eye she disclosed was inflicted by [Stepmother], and [N.A.] and [J.A.] also disclosed witnessing [Stepmother] hit [A.A.] in the eye.

c. [A.A.] was seen at Riley Children's Hospital and diagnosed with a periorbital contusion, and the Child Protection Team (CPT) was consulted and found the injury to be most consistent with blunt force trauma to the eye and inflicted injury due to the children all providing the same explanation for how the injury occurred and the extent of the injury.

e. [Father] has not taken necessary action to protect the children from [Stepmother], and [Father] and [Stepmother] failed to seek medical attention for [A.A.]’s injury to her eye.

(App. Vol. 2 at 48-49).

[7] The trial court heard the facts as set forth above during a two-day CHINS factfinding hearing in January 2025. A DCS family case manager (“the FCM”) testified that “[i]t was scary and heartbreaking” to see A.A. with a black eye. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 98). The FCM further testified that it was her “understanding that this injury had ․ occurred as a result of [A.A.’s] stepmother[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 98). In addition, the FCM testified that she understood that “there had been prior [unsubstantiated] reports about abuse from [Stepmother][.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 98). According to the FCM, when there is a pattern of reports regarding abuse, “[i]t's important, especially one that leads to substantiation with the black eye of a seven-year-old little girl. It's ․ important that DCS intervene ․ so that [DCS] can put in services ․ to address the problem that led to DCS involvement and ․ hopefully ․ eliminate any future need for DCS involvement.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 98).

[8] In addition, a DCS family case manager supervisor testified that if the case was closed and the children were returned to Father, she was concerned there would be “future child abuse on one or all of the children.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 111). Further, the assessment case manager testified that she had taken photographs of A.A.’s black eye, and the trial court admitted those photographs into evidence as Exhibits 1-3.

[9] Eleven-year-old N.A. also testified at the hearing. Specifically, N.A. testified that A.A. had told her that she had gotten the black eye when Stepmother had hit her with a stool. When DCS asked her if she would feel safe going home with Father and Stepmother that day, N.A. responded, “Not really.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 117).

[10] In addition, Father testified at the hearing. According to Father, DCS had become involved with his family on this case “[f]or an accident.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 64). Father specifically explained that Stepmother had accidentally hit A.A. in the eye with her ring. Further, Father acknowledged that he was aware that the children were “uncomfortable being alone with [Stepmother,]” and that they had told him that they were afraid of what Stepmother was “doing to them.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 70). However, according to Father, he had told the children that there was nothing that Stepmother had done that he would have done differently. In addition, Father specifically testified that he would leave the children alone in Stepmother's care in the future. Father further testified that he disciplined the children by spanking them with a paddle.

[11] Also, Father testified that each child had issues resulting from the trauma that they had experienced while living with Mother. For example, according to Father, eleven-year-old N.A. had tried to set the house on fire and had talked about having sex. Father testified that he was concerned that J.A. and A.A. were going to follow in N.A.’s footsteps. In addition, Father agreed that the children needed services, including therapy, to process their trauma. According to Father, N.A. had attended two therapy sessions during the summer of 2024. However, the sessions had ended because of “scheduling conflicts[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 86). According to Father, he had looked for other therapists twice a month “whenever there [ ] [was] a problem that arose[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 73). Father further testified that he had not been able to find other available therapists for N.A. and that service providers had told him that nine-year-old J.A. and seven-year-old A.A. were too young for therapy. At the end of the two-day hearing, Father testified that he had found therapists for the children in New York, where his parents live.

[12] In February 2025, the trial court issued an order adjudicating the children to be CHINS. The order provides, in relevant part, as follows:

8. Children came to DCS's attention on or about September 30, 2024, after [A.A.] was observed to have a black eye caused by Step-Mother. [See Exhibits 1-3]

9. DCS had previous unsubstantiated assessments with the family due to physical abuse of the children by Step-Mother.

10. A PEDS referral was made for [A.A.] with Riley Children's Hospital, the results of which led the Department to open a case with the family.

11. The Department does not open cases for injuries deemed most likely to have been inflicted accidentally ․ as described by parent caregivers.

12. Father and Step-Mother claimed the black eye occurred as a result of an accident in which Step-Mother turned around and caught [A.A.] in the eye with a ring on her hand.

* * * * *

17. The children have informed Father of their fears of StepMother, but Father believes Step-Mother over the children, and believes they lie simply because they don't like Step-Mother.

* * * * *

19. Father knows what Step-Mother has done to the children in the past, and states he agrees with everything Step-Mother has done to the children, and would have handled situations with his children the same way. Father states he implemented physical discipline, including using a paddle on the children.

* * * * *

26. [N.A.] appeared very fearful to testify, and states she feels safe with her Father, but would not feel safe returning home to him and her Step-Mother at the time of Fact-Finding.

* * * * *

The Court adjudicates the Children [N.A.], [J.A.], and [A.A.] Children in Need of Services under I.C. 31-34-1-1. The Court, additionally, adjudicates [A.A.] a Child in Need of Services under I.C. 31-34-1-2.

The children's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or endangered as a result of their parents’ inability, refusal, and neglect to provide the children with basic care and necessities, including a safe and stable home environment, free from physical abuse.

(App. Vol. 2 at 143-44).

[13] Father now appeals.

Decision

[14] Father argues that the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating the children to be CHINS. He specifically contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication. We disagree.

[15] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action. In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Therefore, DCS had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. See id. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this evidence. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only if it is clearly erroneous. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017).

[16] A CHINS adjudication focuses on the child's condition rather than the parent's culpability. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to provide proper services for the benefit of the child, not to punish the parent. Id. at 106. A CHINS adjudication in no way challenges the general competency of parents to continue relationships with their children. Id. at 105.

[17] Here, the trial court entered sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon. “As to the issues covered by the findings, we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. We review the remaining issues under the general judgment standard, which provides that a judgment “will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. (cleaned up). Under the general judgment standard of review, the reviewing court “may look both to other findings and beyond the findings to the evidence of record to determine if the result is against the facts and circumstances before the court.” C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Further, we accept unchallenged findings as true. In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744, 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[18] Lastly, we note that, as a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “This deference recognizes a trial court's unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A-JC-895 | November 25, 2025 Page 9 of 12 testimony, as opposed to this court[ ] only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Id.

[19] Here, the trial court adjudicated the children to be CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1, which provides that a child is a CHINS 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 the 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.

[20] The Indiana Supreme Court has synthesized this statutory language, explaining that a CHINS adjudication requires proof of “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.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.

[21] Father specifically argues that “there simply is no evidence that Father's acts or omissions endangered” the children. (Father's Br. 12). However, our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals that Stepmother caused A.A.’s black eye and that it was not an accident. Specifically, when DCS receives a report of an injured child, DCS typically refers the child for a PEDS examination and does not remove the child from his or her parents if the PEDS team concludes that the injury was caused by an accident. Here, DCS removed the children from Father. Further, N.A. testified that A.A. had told her that A.A. had gotten the black eye when Stepmother had hit her with a stool. In addition, the children have told Father that they are afraid of Stepmother and that they do not feel comfortable staying alone with her. Eleven-year-old N.A. testified that she would not feel safe going home with Father and Stepmother on the day of the hearing. Yet, Father testified that he would leave the children alone with Stepmother in the future and that he had told the children that there was nothing that Stepmother had done that he would have done differently.

[22] From this evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the children were seriously endangered by Father's failure to provide them with a safe and stable home environment, which is free from physical abuse. Father's argument is a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. There is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication, and the trial court did not clearly err in adjudicating the children to be CHINS.¹

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father also argues that the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating A.A. to be a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-34-1-2. However, because we have concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in adjudicating A.A. to be a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1, we need not address this issue.

Pyle, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.