IN RE: E.G. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A.G. (“Father”) and M.G. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the trial court's determination that their child is a child in need of services (CHINS), arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] E.G. (“Child”) was born in August 2014. When Child was around 18 months old, he and his three siblings were removed from their biological parents due to abuse and neglect, including physical abuse and food scarcity. Parents, who have four children of their own, adopted Child and his siblings in May 2018, when Child was three. Parents and the eight children originally lived in Ohio.

[3] Child has congenital arthrogryposis, which is a malformation of the joints in his hands. While living in Ohio, Child saw a specialist and occupational therapist for this condition. Additionally, due to his experiences while living with his biological parents, Child was diagnosed with PTSD and has struggled with food insecurity, food-hoarding behavior, and lying “[i]n conjunction with this behavior.” Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 p. 81. Parents started Child in counseling for his behavioral issues in 2018 but eventually took him out due to his young age. In 2022, when Child was eight, Parents brought him to another counselor to address his issues with lying. His last appointment with that counselor was in February 2023.

[4] In the fall of 2024, Parents removed the children from school and began homeschooling them because they planned to move to Indiana. The family moved to Indiana in December 2024, and the children continued homeschooling here but haven't been enrolled in a formal homeschool program. Instead, they use a curriculum called Master Books, which consists of Mother scanning and printing out worksheets for the children to complete. While Parents are at work, the older children are responsible for completing their schoolwork and administering schoolwork to the younger siblings.

[5] The Department of Child Services (DCS) became involved with the family in February 2025. Just after midnight on February 25, Mother called the police because she thought Child had run away from home. By the time an officer arrived, Child had been found in the basement, but Mother still wanted to speak with police. She said Child was “a liar and a manipulator,” and she was “very upset” that “no one was helping [Parents] ․ with issues dealing with [Child].” Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 20, 27. Another officer arrived and spoke with Child. She noticed that he was “really skinny” and his face was “sunken in.” Id. at 24. Officers also found padlocks and chains on the refrigerator and cabinets in the home.

[6] Later that morning, police returned to the home with a social worker to conduct a welfare check. Again, officers observed that Child was “incredibly thin,” while the rest of his siblings “appeared to be very heathy, normal size, weight for their age.” Id. at 45. Child and his brother shared a room, and while his brother's bed had sheets, blankets, pillows, and stuffed animals on it, Child's bed was a dirty mattress with just a sheet over it and a broken bed frame. Child also had multiple scars and bruising on his wrists. Police reported the situation to DCS, and DCS removed Child from Parents and filed a petition alleging that he is a CHINS that same day.¹ Child was also taken to a local hospital for evaluation. DCS placed Child in foster care, where he has since remained.

[7] Two days later, on February 27, Child was evaluated by Dr. Ann Freshour, a child-abuse pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children. Child told Dr. Freshour that Parents treated him differently than the rest of his siblings, including by imposing different punishments on him. He said he was forced to stand for extended periods during the day, sometimes with a blanket over his head, had been hit with a belt, and had his hands zip-tied behind his back, which was evidenced by a healed scar on his wrist. Child reported that he was fed only a can of soup or vegetables for each meal. At that appointment, Child, then ten years old, weighed 78.9 pounds. At his last doctor's appointment in March 2024, he'd weighed 79 pounds. Based on his height, Child's body mass index was 9.7%, which is “a low BMI for his age.” Id. at 61. Child also disclosed educational and medical neglect. He told Dr. Freshour that he'd been out of school since fall of 2024, but it “was unclear what ‘homeschooling’ consisted of.” Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 p. 83. Child said he'd previously been in therapy for his arthrogryposis, which helped with his pain, but he hadn't received treatment since moving to Indiana. Dr. Freshour concluded that Child's presentation was “most cons[istent] with a medical diagnos[is] of child torture,” which consists of “[a]t least two elements of physical abuse” and an “additional two elements of p[sych]ological abuse.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 59.

[8] Child and his siblings underwent forensic interviews, and some of the siblings confirmed that Child “had been ‘whooped’, zip-tied, and treated differently.” Ex. Vol. 1 p. 10. Based on the children's disclosures, Parents were later charged with Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury, Level 3 felony criminal confinement resulting in serious bodily injury, two counts of Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent, and Level 6 felony battery on a person less than fourteen years old (all as to Child) as well as eight counts of Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent by depriving the dependent of education (one count for each child).² Dr. Freshour referred Child to an orthopedic surgeon, physical therapist, and occupational therapist for his arthrogryposis and recommended trauma-focused behavioral therapy. Child began therapy in March. At a doctor's appointment on May 2, Child weighed 88 pounds, meaning he'd gained nearly 10 pounds in just over two months.

[9] The CHINS fact-finding hearing began on May 22. By that point, all of Parents’ other children except the oldest child were living with family in Ohio. Dr. Freshour expressed concern about continued abuse or neglect if Child were to return to Parents’ care. She testified that one can of vegetables for each meal is “not an [adequate] diet for a 10 year old.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 60. Child's therapist recommended that he “absolutely” continue in therapy because “he hasn't even began [sic] to process” his trauma. Id. at 79. The hearing continued and concluded in June.

[10] Later in June, the trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. The following month, the court held a dispositional hearing and issued an order setting forth various requirements for Parents.

[11] Parents now appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Parents contend that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that Child is a CHINS. We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only upon a showing that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). “We neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility; rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the trial court's decision.” In re A.C., 198 N.E.3d 1, 10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

[13] We begin by highlighting that Parents’ brief substantially violates the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. They don't identify the applicable standard of review or cite any legal authority to support their argument as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). Additionally, their argument that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence is not supported by cogent reasoning; rather, they merely recount testimony that is contrary to the trial court's findings. See Reel v. Reel, 231 N.E.3d 915, 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (“In short, Mother focuses on the evidence that is least favorable to the trial court's ruling․ We must decline Mother's request to reweigh [the] evidence ․”). Litigants who fail to support their arguments with cogent reasoning and appropriate citations to legal authority waive those arguments for our review. Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015); A.C., 198 N.E.3d at 11 n.2. But despite these significant violations, because “we prefer to resolve cases on the merits instead of on procedural grounds like waiver,” Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1267 (quotation omitted), we will address the sufficiency of the evidence.

[14] Here, DCS alleged that Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, which 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.

An adjudication under this statute “requires 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.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied.

[15] There is sufficient evidence that Parents’ actions and inactions have seriously endangered Child. When police responded to Mother's call, they noticed padlocks and chains on the refrigerator and cabinets in the home. Child's bed had a broken frame, and he had a dirty mattress with just a sheet over it. Child appeared “really skinny” and his face was “sunken in,” while his siblings appeared healthy. He had scarring and bruising on his wrists, which was consistent with his disclosure to Dr. Freshour that Parents zip-tied his hands. Child also told Dr. Freshour that he'd been hit with a belt, forced to stand for extended periods during the day, sometimes with a blanket over his head, and was fed only a can of soup or vegetables for each meal, which is “not an [adequate] diet for a 10 year old.” From March 2024 to February 2025, Child's weight decreased from 79 to 78.9 pounds, and his BMI was low for his age. Dr. Freshour found that Child's physical and living conditions were consistent with a medical diagnosis of child torture.

[16] The evidence also establishes that Child's needs are unmet and are unlikely to be met without State coercion. Parents took Child out of school in the fall of 2024, and the trial court found that Child “was not enrolled in an appropriate homeschooling program” while living with Parents. Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 p. 84. Since moving to Indiana, Parents hadn't gotten Child any care for his arthrogryposis. Although they had him in counseling on and off while living in Ohio, the last counseling appointment they took him to was in February 2023. Child started therapy after his removal, and his therapist testified at the fact-finding hearing that he “absolutely” should continue in therapy because “he hasn't even began [sic] to process” his trauma. And after being placed into foster care, Child gained nearly ten pounds in just over two months.

[17] As noted above, rather than articulating an argument that this evidence is insufficient to support a CHINS adjudication, Parents simply recite the testimony that is least favorable to the trial court's determination—much of which is Mother's own testimony. But this is a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See A.C., 198 N.E.3d at 10. Parents have not shown that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In April 2025, DCS requested authorization to file petitions alleging that the other seven children are CHINS, but the trial court denied its request.

2.   Mother's and Father's criminal trials are scheduled for March 2026.

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.