IN RE: L.P.J. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] L.P. (Father) and Y.B. (Mother)¹ (collectively, Parents) appeal the trial court's determination that their three children were children in need of services (CHINS). The evidence showed that Parents tested positive for illegal drugs in a prior custody proceeding, later refused additional drug testing, admitted to methamphetamine possession while the children lived in their home, and resisted the Indiana Department of Child Services’ (DCS) efforts to assess the children's safety. School officials also reported food insecurity concerns, including the children frequently requesting food and storing it in unusual ways, as well as one child's poor academic performance. Parents argue this evidence was insufficient to support the CHINS adjudication. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Father and Mother have three children: 13-year-old S.P. (Older Daughter), 11-year-old L.P.J. (Son), and 8-year-old L.F.P. (Younger Daughter) (collectively, Children). Between 2016 and 2025, Parents were part of a cycle of repeated DCS involvement due to their illegal drug use, domestic violence, and inability to keep Children safe from those conditions.

[3] DCS first became involved with the family in 2016, when DCS substantiated a report of Parents’ domestic violence and substance abuse. Older Daughter and Son were adjudged to be CHINS that September, and Younger Daughter was born roughly five months later. In October 2017, Younger Daughter, too, was adjudged to be a CHINS based on Parents admitting to substance abuse.

[4] In December 2017, Father was charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license. Father later pleaded guilty to the charges and was placed on probation. But over the next year, he was twice found to have violated his probation based on new possession of methamphetamine charges.

[5] Over the course of the pending CHINS cases, DCS removed Children from Parents’ care and placed them in foster care. A trial home visit between Mother and Children was terminated after two months, when DCS found illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia in Mother's home. DCS eventually filed petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights as to Children, but later dismissed those petitions when Parents became compliant with court-ordered services. In April 2020, the CHINS cases were closed after Parents successfully completed services and a trial home visit.

[6] DCS became involved with the family for the second time in the fall of 2020, when it substantiated allegations of Parents’ drug use and domestic violence. By this time, Mother had also been charged with several offenses, including causing serious bodily injury when operating a vehicle, unlawful possession of a syringe, false informing, leaving the scene of an accident, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and operating a vehicle with a Schedule I or II drug.

[7] Parents and DCS entered into a six-month informal adjustment, under which DCS created a safety plan for Children. The informal adjustment required, among other things, that Parents participate in services and submit to random drug screens. Father complied with these terms. Mother, however, violated the safety plan by leaving Children in the care of a known methamphetamine user and by continuing to use methamphetamine.

[8] Though DCS filed new petitions alleging Children were CHINS, it moved to dismiss the petitions in February 2021. By then, Parents had met the goals set for them, and Father had maintained sobriety and had received custody of Children. The trial court dismissed the CHINS petitions and the informal adjustment.

[9] Approximately 31/212 years later, in September 2024, DCS became involved with the family for the third time after receiving a report that there was no food in Children's home. The report could not be substantiated, so the assessment was closed in October. However, that same month, Parents attended a custody hearing held in a separate paternity court proceeding, during which they accused each other of using illegal drugs. After Mother testified that she and Father smoked methamphetamine together, the paternity court required both Parents to submit to drug screening immediately.² Father tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, and Mother tested positive for THC. Based on these positive drug results, DCS initiated a new assessment to determine whether Children were safe and whether court intervention was necessary.

[10] As part of this assessment, a DCS family case manager (FCM) interviewed Children at school and spoke with school staff about concerns related to Children's school attendance, grades, homework, food insecurity, and hygiene. The FCM learned that Children had been storing food in strange ways, which was unusual for their ages. And despite urging from school staff, Parents had delayed enrolling in a state-funded food program. Father, however, had signed up two of the Children for a county youth food program that provided them with a bag of food each Friday to take home for the weekend.

[11] Younger Daughter's teacher also expressed concerns that the child had missed several days of school and had failed many of her classes. This had prompted the school to begin developing an individualized education plan for her. The teacher tried calling Parents several times about Younger Daughter's academic struggles, but Parents did not return her calls.

[12] As DCS's assessment continued, Parents repeatedly refused to submit to drug screens and thwarted the FCM's attempts to make unannounced visits to their home to assess Children's current living conditions. Parents stated they would not allow access to the property without a court order. On one occasion, the FCM could not enter the family's property because the gate had been padlocked.

[13] In January 2025, the trial court granted DCS's request for an order allowing DCS staff to observe the family home and property, interview Children alone, and have Parents submit to random drug screens. Despite the court's order, the FCM was twice denied access to the family home. When the FCM eventually gained access on January 16, she was able to briefly observe that the kitchen contained several packages of ramen noodles, a baking mix, a loaf of bread, English muffins, bagels, jelly, salad dressing, a gallon of milk, and a bag of vegetables.

[14] The next day, Parents submitted to drug screens and tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. When DCS received the test results on January 30, staff removed Children from the family home. As the FCM drove Children away, they told him they were hungry and asked him to buy food from a fast-food restaurant. Despite their excitement over receiving the food, Children ate little to none of it. Younger Daughter condensed her food into a small package, storing it for later. The FCM later testified that the behavior was unusual and indicated food trauma.

[15] DCS filed petitions alleging Children were CHINS, and a fact-finding hearing was held in March 2025. In April, the trial court adjudged Children to be CHINS, noting Parents’ drug use, Children's food insecurity and unusual behavior regarding storing food, and Younger Daughter's academic improvement that occurred after she was removed from Parents’ care. Parents now appeal the trial court's CHINS determination.³

Discussion and Decision

[16] Parents argue that DCS presented insufficient evidence to prove Children were CHINS. When reviewing a CHINS adjudication for sufficient evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's decision. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-87 (Ind. 2014).

[17] Where, as here, the trial court supplements its determination with sua sponte findings and conclusions, “we consider whether the evidence supports the findings and whether those findings support the judgment.” Matter of E.K., 260 N.E.3d 901, 909 (Ind. 2025). “But we review issues not covered by the findings under the general judgment standard, meaning we will affirm the court's decision if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. Parents challenge none of the trial court's findings of fact, only its conclusion that Children are CHINS. “We accept unchallenged findings as true.” Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[18] Because a CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child, “the acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). Therefore, a separate analysis as to each parent is generally not required. Id. at 106.

[19] Here, the trial court found that Children were CHINS as defined in Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1. A CHINS adjudication under this section requires DCS to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

(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 ․ 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.

Id.; Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 (preponderance of evidence).

[20] In other words, there must have been sufficient evidence supporting three basic elements: (1) Parents’ actions or inactions seriously endangered Children; (2) Children's needs are unmet; and (3) those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion. See S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. The third element guards against unwarranted State interference in family life because “[n]ot every endangered child is a child in need of services, permitting the State's parens patriae intrusion into the ordinarily private sphere of the family.” Id. For this reason, courts “should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017) (citation omitted).

[21] Parents argue that DCS failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove all three elements. We address each element and affirm.

I. Children Were Seriously Endangered

[22] Parents first claim Children were not seriously endangered when they were adjudicated CHINS because, by then, Parents had stopped using drugs, there was no evidence their prior drug use caused any actual harm to Children, and most of their positive drug screens were for THC. Parents also contend that any food insecurity Children might have encountered had been rectified and that the evidence failed to establish Parents were the cause of Younger Daughter's academic challenges. The record belies these characterizations.

[23] As for Parents’ drug use, the evidence shows their history of substance abuse stretches back to 2016. Two years later, Father pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine. Father achieved sobriety in 2021 but could not sustain it, relapsing 31/212 years later. Mother had her own struggles with drug use, particularly methamphetamine. And Parents repeatedly refused to submit to court-ordered drug screens. When they did screen, Parents tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, in addition to THC. Moreover, the trial court found that Parents had admitted to possessing methamphetamine while Children lived with them, and Parents do not challenge the finding.

[24] Parents last tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine in January 2025, which led to Children being removed from the home and DCS filing the instant CHINS petitions. And while the FCM was removing Children, he smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the home, suggesting drug use had occurred in the home. A child's exposure to illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to the child. In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561, 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind. 1989)). The threat is two-fold: the child may see the parent using the drugs, and the parent who is responsible for the child's care and custody may be impaired. See id. In the latter circumstance, the parent “essentially abandon[s]” the child, leaving the child “without any reasonable supervision.” Id.

[25] Parents’ drug use, however, was not the only basis for the trial court's CHINS determination. The court also noted that Children regularly asked school staff for food and had displayed the unusual behavior of storing food that had been purchased for them. Indeed, the FCM who transported Children after their removal from the family home testified that, after he purchased fast food for Children, they ate little to none of it. Younger Daughter also stored the food by “compacting it so she could take it with her.” Id. at 109. The FCM testified that this behavior “can indicate that [Children have] had previous trauma of not getting food[.]” Id. He explained that, if the “food trauma” is prolonged, “it can lead to scars down the road in [a child's] mental health.” Id. at 121-22.

[26] Regarding Younger Daughter's poor academic performance and failing grades, the child's teacher testified there was “great improvement” in her grades after she was removed to foster care. Id. at 90. And while Parents offered many excuses at the fact-finding hearing for Younger Daughter's academic struggles, the trial court was free to find their testimony not credible and to give it little, if any, weight. See, e.g., Tharp v. State, 942 N.E.2d 814, 816 (Ind. 2011) (noting, “the fact finder is best positioned to judge the credibility of these witnesses, is free to credit or discredit testimony, and weigh conflicting evidence”).

[27] In sum, DCS presented evidence that: (1) Parents have a long history of illicit drug use and a history of criminal activity; (2) Children appeared to have experienced trauma due to food insecurity; and (3) Younger Daughter struggled academically while in Parents’ care. Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, this evidence was sufficient to prove Children were seriously endangered by Parents’ conduct.

II. Children Had Unmet Needs

[28] Next, Parents claim DCS failed to demonstrate that Children had unmet needs. Mother argues there is “no evidence in this case of substantial parental shortcomings” and no evidence that Children “have ever been deprived of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education.” Appellant's Br. (Mother), p. 11. We cannot agree.

[29] First, ample evidence was presented regarding Parents’ shortcomings in the form of their illicit drug use and criminal activity. And, second, Mother ignores testimony from a schoolteacher and the FCM that Children regularly asked school staff for food and displayed unusual behavior by storing food. Indeed, the FCM testified that Children's behavior was indicative of them having experienced “previous trauma of not getting food in the past.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 109. Based on this evidence, we cannot say DCS failed to present sufficient evidence that Children had unmet needs—particularly, a safe, drug-free home and an adequate amount of food.

III. Coercive Intervention Was Necessary

[30] Finally, Parents argue DCS failed to prove Children required care, treatment, or rehabilitation that they were unlikely to receive without court intervention, as Parents had applied for state food benefits and enrolled Children in a county food program, taken “appropriate steps” to address Younger Daughter's academic challenges, and recently tested negative for illegal drugs. Appellant's Br. (Mother), p. 12. In determining this element, we consider “the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580. “The same evidence used by the court to determine that a parent's acts or omissions injured or endangered a child may also support that coercive intervention is necessary to safeguard the child.” In re N.E., 198 N.E.3d 384, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

[31] DCS sufficiently proved court intervention was necessary for Children to receive care. For example, evidence was presented showing that the FCM attempted to assess Children's safety by conducting home visits and requesting additional drug screens. Parents, however, thwarted the FCM's efforts to gain access to the home and refused further drug testing. This prevented the FCM from verifying their sobriety or evaluating Children's living conditions, including food availability. Without that verification, the FCM could not determine whether Children's needs were being met or whether care or services were needed.

[32] Parents’ “lack of cooperation with DCS shows that they are unlikely to provide the care and supervision [their Children] need[ ] without the coercive intervention of the court.” Matter of D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 562-63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. And while a CHINS adjudication may not be based solely on conditions that no longer exist, In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), the trial court here was entitled to consider during the fact-finding hearing Parents’ refusal to cooperate with the assessment and the difficulty the FCM encountered in verifying Children's safety. This evidence was more than sufficient to demonstrate court coercion was necessary to ensure Children had a safe, secure, drug-free home containing adequate food.

Conclusion

[33] For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's determination that Children were CHINS.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The case captions on the briefs and appendices for this appeal list Mother's initials as Y.G., reflecting her change in surname during the trial court proceedings. The text of this opinion uses Mother's previous surname and initials, as reflected in the case caption for this appeal.

2.   When the custody hearing took place in October 2024, Father had primary physical custody of Children. However, by the end of the month, both Parents were living together with Children.

3.   While this appeal was pending, the trial court terminated DCS’ wardship of Children and reunified them with Parents. The underlying CHINS cases are now closed, but, given the collateral consequences that a CHINS finding can have for a parent, Parents’ appeal is not moot. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290 (Ind. 2014).

Weissmann, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.