IN RE: L.H. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.L. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's adjudication of her son, L.H. Jr., (“Child”), as a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother claims the trial court erred in finding Child to be a CHINS because the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to present sufficient evidence to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[2] Child was born in January 2019. On December 22, 2024, L.H. Sr. (“Father”), reported to law enforcement Mother physically attacked him and destroyed property in his apartment. Father and Mother lived on opposite ends of the same building. Child lived with Mother in her apartment; Father had parenting time according to Indiana's Parenting Time Guidelines. Mother and Child were staying in Father's apartment during the “whole month” of December because Mother's place was cold. Tr. Vol. 2 at 63. On the day of the incident, Mother asked Father for money to pay her rent, and he gave her some. When Mother requested additional funds to buy medicine, Father told her to take it from the rent money, and he would give her more when he got paid later that week. Mother became upset and “got all disrespectful[.]” Id. Father asked Mother to leave; she refused. Mother turned aggressive, “wrestled around[,]” bit Father's arm, and destroyed food and other items in Father's apartment. Id. at 64. Child witnessed Mother's actions. A family case manager (“FCM”) with DCS conducted an assessment the following day. The FCM interviewed Father and Child about what occurred.

[3] On February 7, 2025, DCS filed a petition alleging Child was a CHINS because of a “history of domestic violence” between his parents. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 19. The trial court held an initial hearing at which Mother denied the allegations. See id. at 24.¹

[4] On March 20, the trial court held a factfinding hearing on the CHINS petition. Father testified he and Mother had been in an on-and-off relationship since 2017. He stated their disagreements became physical not long after Child's birth. Father described Mother's history of abusive behavior, asserting, “she'll close her eyes and she'll just get to swinging and stuff like that[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 66. Father testified Mother acted violently in front of Child and her other children in the past.² According to Father, he previously called police because Mother attacked him, but she was not arrested as he was unable to prove physical injuries. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 76.

[5] Mother moved out of her apartment at some point before the factfinding hearing. By then she also faced criminal charges regarding the incident in December, and there was an order for protection against Mother in favor of Father. During her testimony at the hearing, Mother related past instances when Father was violent toward her. Mother claimed she “didn't know [Father] had a history of domestic violence” when the two started dating. Id. at 143.³ Mother testified about a previous relationship during which she experienced domestic violence. Mother participated in therapy for approximately eight months in 2013 after the end of her previous relationship and maintained she had since “learned to cope with all the trauma ․ [and] to control [her] behaviors [and her] emotions.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 143. Mother stated that moving forward, she had no intention of seeing Father again, had registered Child for virtual therapy, and felt she could provide Child with the stability he needed.

[6] The trial court heard from all three FCMs involved in this case. Their concerns for Child's well-being were “based on [a] history of [Mother] being violent towards other people.” Id. at 100; see also id. at 119. The FCM testified about the services DCS provided Mother since the filing of the CHINS petition. DCS staff helped Mother develop a safety plan with the goal of deescalating disputes with Father. But Mother “chose not to engage” with family preservation services offered. Id. at 116. The FCM underscored the need for family preservation services to address the effect of domestic violence. See id. at 118. Because DCS recommended Child remain with Mother, it was important for services “to be in-home” to “tailor the information and education specific[ally]” to the needs of Mother and Child together. Id. at 119.

[7] The trial court subsequently issued a written order adjudicating Child a CHINS as defined in Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1:

BM. The Court finds the coercive intervention of the Court is necessary to ensure [Child] receives necessary services to address his trauma from being exposed to the domestic violence between the parents in the home environment.

BN. The Court finds the coercive intervention of the Court is necessary to ensure the Mother and the Father both receive services to address domestic violence, all forms of domestic violence, its effect on children, create true safety plans that will inhibit domestic violence, and provide resources and ways for parents to properly parent and communicate when there are domestic violence issues between the parents.

BO. The Court does not believe that Mother ․ and Father ․ will be able to address issues involving [Child] in the future without the benefit of services that will address domestic violence, communication, self-esteem, parenting[,] and any other issue that may be affecting the parents’ ability to co-exist without physical altercations occurring.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 38. Child remained with Mother.

[8] On July 1, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. Mother objected to services related to domestic violence treatment: “I just don't feel like it's needed at the moment.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 171. The court thereafter issued a written disposition ordering, in part, Mother to enroll in “homebased services and individual therapy related to domestic violence services and a domestic violence curriculum[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 42.

The evidence supports the findings, and the CHINS determination is not clearly erroneous.

[9] In a CHINS proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012); see Ind. Code §§ 31-34-1-1 to -11 (describing instances under which a child is a CHINS); I.C. § 31-34-12-3 (1997) (mandating preponderance standard). A CHINS adjudication centers on the needs and condition of the child. In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). When reviewing a CHINS adjudication for sufficient evidence, we do not reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility but consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's decision. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–78 (Ind. 2017). “We reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous.” K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253.

[10] When the trial court, as here, enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte, we review issues covered by the findings with a “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). This Court reviews issues not covered by the findings under the general judgment standard, meaning the Court will affirm the judgment if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id. Findings not challenged on appeal must be taken as true. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992).

[11] Here, DCS alleged Child was a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, which requires DCS to prove:

(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.

“The statute contains three basic elements: (1) the parent's actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child; (2) the child's needs are unmet; and (3) those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.” N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475 (citing S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287)).

[12] Mother argues the “trial court erred in adjudicating [Child] a CHINS because there was no evidence [Child] was in any danger, or that his needs would go unmet in the absence of the coercive intervention of the trial court.” Appellant's Br. at 10. She posits it was clear error for the court to find intervention necessary when “[t]he record is devoid of any evidence ․ there existed any need for care, treatment, or rehabilitation that [Child] was not receiving[.]” Id. at 12.

[13] Mother only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings BM, BN, and BO above, so we accept the rest of the findings as true. See Madlem, 592 N.E.2d at 687. DCS became involved in this case because of a domestic violence incident between Father and Mother. Child witnessed Mother attack Father and destroy property while staying in his apartment. Father described Mother's history of aggression to which Child had been exposed. Mother similarly made allegations regarding Father's abuse toward her, and the trial court concluded there “has been domestic violence in the relationship between [Father and Mother] for a majority” of their time together. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 35. The court additionally found Father and Mother “would end their relationship and then get back together, even after incidents occurred involv[ing] physical acts or injuries.” Id. at 38. The evidence presented supports the challenged finding that exposure to parents’ history of domestic violence endangered Child.

[14] Yet Mother suggests conditions have changed since the filing of the CHINS petition, particularly since she and Father are no longer in a relationship. See Appellant's Br. at 10. (citing In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602, 611 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (noting trial courts should consider a parent's situation at the time the case is heard and not rely solely on conditions no longer present when making a CHINS determination)), trans. denied. But as DCS argues, there is no guarantee Father and Mother will not reunite or choose “not to comply with the terms” of the order for protection against Mother. Appellee's Br. at 15. And although Mother claimed she registered Child for virtual therapy, the FCM testified to the importance of in-home family preservation services specifically tailored to address the history of domestic violence. Mother insisted she had learned to “cope with all the trauma” and “to control [her] behaviors[,]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 143, but the trial court did not reach the same conclusion. As the court found, “past behaviors are the best predictors of future behaviors.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 38; see also In re K.B., 24 N.E.3d 997, 1003–04 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (explaining trial courts need not wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene). The evidence DCS presented demonstrates Child's needs are unmet.

[15] Finally, evidence at the factfinding hearing supports the challenged finding that Child needs care unlikely to be provided absent the coercive intervention of the court. Exposure to domestic violence can support a CHINS adjudication. See In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). “[E]ven in the earliest phases of infant and toddler development, clear associations have been found between exposure to violence and post-traumatic symptoms and disorders.” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 644 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Joy. D. Osofsky, The Effects of Exposure to Violence on Young Children, 50 Am. Psychologist 782, 783 (1995)). Here, Child has been exposed to incidents of domestic violence on multiple occasions. As a five-year-old, he witnessed his mother physically harm his father. The two adults have a history of being unable to break harmful patterns. Mother has not participated in counseling or therapy since 2013. She declined to engage with the family preservation services DCS offered. The FCM testified to the importance of in-home services to address the needs of Mother and Child together. Although Mother felt services were not “needed at the moment[,]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 171, Mother's past history, coupled with the incident in Father's apartment, convinced the trial court otherwise. The court did not clearly err in adjudicating Child a CHINS.

Conclusion

[16] The trial court's CHINS determination is not clearly erroneous.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court also entered a denial for Father. Id. Father subsequently stipulated that Child was a CHINS and does not participate in this appeal. Tr. Vol. 2 at 67; Ex. Vol. 1 at 43–44.

2.   Mother has two children from her last relationship. From 2017 to 2019, there was an order for protection against Mother in favor of one of her other children due to physical abuse. See id. at 98; Ex. Vol. 1 at 40–42. Neither of Mother's other children are involved in this matter.

3.   In 2023, Mother sought an ex parte order for protection against Father alleging domestic abuse. Her petition was denied for insufficient evidence. See Ex. Vol. 1 at 48–49.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.