IN RE: V.K. AND T.K. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] T.K., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's determination that two of his children are children in need of services (CHINS), arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and A.R. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) are the parents of V.K., born in March 2020, and T.K. III, born in February 2022. Mother does not participate in this appeal.

[3] Parents have a history of involvement with the Department of Child Services (DCS) stemming from domestic violence. In June 2020, when V.K. was three months old, Parents participated in an informal adjustment after DCS received multiple reports of domestic violence in the home. Parents failed to comply with the informal adjustment, and the domestic violence between them continued, so DCS filed a petition alleging that V.K. was a CHINS. V.K. was adjudicated a CHINS in September 2020. A year later, DCS received a report of domestic violence in V.K.’s presence. DCS filed another CHINS petition and placed V.K. in foster care. V.K. was adjudicated a CHINS for a second time in November 2021.

[4] In March 2022, when T.K. was one month old, Parents “were substantiated on for Neglect due to domestic violence taking place in the home.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 30. DCS removed T.K. and filed a petition alleging that he was a CHINS. At that time, V.K. was still in his foster placement. That May, T.K. was found to not be a CHINS and was returned to Parents’ care. In August 2023, V.K.’s foster placement was granted guardianship of him. The guardianship was terminated in July 2024. In addition to the DCS cases, Parents filed for protective orders against each other at least six times from 2020 to January 2025.

[5] In 2025, the children lived with Mother, and Father “ha[d] not established custodial rights.” Id. at 58. On February 2, DCS received a report of substance abuse by Mother and her then-boyfriend and that Mother physically abused V.K., then four. Less than two weeks later, on February 15, DCS received a report that V.K. was in the hospital “due to [Mother] allegedly beating [him] up.” Tr. p. 53. While DCS investigated the reports, Mother refused to allow DCS in her home multiple times and would only allow DCS to see the children in public or at its office. DCS filed petitions alleging that the children are CHINS.

[6] At that time, V.K. was in therapy through LifeSpring Health Systems for behavioral issues. At the end of February, he was hospitalized at Wellstone Regional Hospital due to “concerning behaviors.” Id. at 97. V.K. had to be hospitalized at Wellstone again at the end of March. Mother refused to sign a release for DCS to access V.K.’s therapy records or speak with Wellstone about V.K.’s treatment. After his hospitalizations, Mother took V.K. to see nurse practitioner Haley Kaufman for medication management. NP Kaufman recommended that V.K. participate in therapy and referred him to Full Bloom Counseling. V.K. began therapy in April. He received a “working diagnosis” of “adjustment disorder with a mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct” while his providers “worked to rule out other diagnoses.” Id. at 85-86. DCS recommended that Parents participate in parenting assessments and family-preservation services to help them find resources and learn how to handle V.K.’s behavioral issues, but Parents refused.

[7] The fact-finding hearing began on May 22, 2025. At the time, Mother was pregnant.¹ Despite the protective orders and previous DCS involvement, Mother denied that she and Father have a history of domestic violence and that V.K. witnessed domestic violence between them. Father also denied domestic violence between him and Mother and claimed that the allegations in the protective-order filings and DCS reports were false. Parents both blamed V.K.’s behavioral issues on DCS's involvement. Due to time constraints, the court continued the remainder of the hearing to June.

[8] A week after the first hearing date, police were called to Mother's house after a bystander saw Mother “drag[ ]” V.K., then five, out of her car, “yank[ ] him to the ground,” “hit him in the face,” and “put him in a choke [hold].” Id. at 79. T.K., then three, was in Mother's car when this occurred, and when police arrived, T.K. was crying and “in emotional distress.” Id. at 72. V.K. had bruising on his face and red marks around his eyes. When police asked how V.K. sustained his injuries, Parents said that he self-harms by scratching his face but didn't explain the bruising. Police reported the incident to DCS, after which V.K. was removed from Mother and placed with Father, while T.K. remained with Mother. Due to the removal proceedings, the remainder of the fact-finding hearing was continued to August.

[9] Although V.K. was supposed to attend therapy at Full Bloom weekly, while in Father's care, he attended only one appointment in June and one in July. In June, one of Mother's supervised visits with V.K. had to be ended early because V.K. hit the supervisor. The supervisor recommended that V.K. undergo an assessment, but Father didn't take V.K. to be assessed until after DCS told him to several times.

[10] The remainder of the fact-finding was held in August. Kelsey Klein, V.K.’s clinical therapist at Full Bloom, testified that she hadn't been able to give V.K. a more specific diagnosis than “adjustment disorder” because she “ha[s] not been able to build up enough trust and enough time with him in rapport, because there have been inconsistent appointments.” Id. at 91. Family Case Manager (FCM) Rachel Ellett explained that she didn't believe Father understood V.K.’s behavioral issues because Father has said “he feels like [V.K.] doesn't really need medication and therapy, that he just needs his father to be there.” Id. at 99. FCM Ellett also expressed concern that if the CHINS case were closed, Parents might not continue providing V.K.’s mental-health services.

[11] After the hearing, the trial court adjudicated the children to be CHINS. In September, the court issued a dispositional order setting forth various requirements for Parents.

[12] Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Father contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's determination that the children are 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 consider only the evidence that supports the decision and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id.

[14] Here, DCS alleged that the children are CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1.² A child is a CHINS under this statute if, before the child turns 18,

(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.

Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1. 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 the children. Parents have a yearslong history of domestic violence resulting in at least six protective orders between them in the last five years. For V.K., this has resulted in two prior CHINS adjudications and a guardianship by his former foster placement from August 2023 to July 2024. V.K. has also been diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with a mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.” In addition to domestic violence with Father, Mother has physically abused V.K. while T.K. was also in her care. In February 2025, DCS received a report that four-year-old V.K. was in the hospital due to Mother “beating [him] up.” And a few months later, a bystander saw Mother “drag[ ]” V.K., then five, out of her car, “yank[ ] him to the ground,” “hit him in the face,” and “put him in a choke [hold],” all while three-year-old T.K. was also in the car. Id. at 72. When police responded to this incident, V.K. had bruising on his face and red marks around his eyes, and T.K. was crying and “in emotional distress.” As a result of this incident, V.K. was removed from Mother and placed with Father while T.K. remained with Mother, so by the second day of the fact-finding hearing, the children were separated.

[16] The evidence also establishes that the children's needs are unmet and are unlikely to be met without State coercion. Despite the history described above, at the fact-finding hearing, Parents both denied any domestic violence between them. When DCS was investigating the report of substance abuse and physical abuse in early 2025, Mother refused to allow DCS in her home multiple times and would only allow DCS to see the children in public or at its office. In spite of DCS's recommendations, Parents refused to undergo parenting assessments or participate in family-preservation services to help them find resources and learn how to handle V.K.’s behavioral issues. Instead, Parents blamed V.K.’s behavioral issues on DCS's involvement with the family. Although Mother initially had V.K. in therapy through LifeSpring, he had to be hospitalized at Wellstone twice due to “concerning behaviors.” NP Kaufman recommended that V.K. participate in therapy in addition to medication management, and V.K. began therapy at Full Bloom in April. But while in Father's care, V.K. attended only one therapy appointment in June and one in July even though he was supposed to attend weekly. And when V.K.’s visit supervisor recommended that he undergo an assessment, Father didn't take him to be assessed until after DCS told him to several times. FCM Ellett expressed concerns that Parents wouldn't continue V.K.’s mental-health services if the CHINS case were closed and that Father doesn't understand V.K.’s behavioral issues because “he feels like [V.K.] doesn't really need medication and therapy, ․ he just needs his father to be there.” And V.K.’s clinical therapist Kelsey Klein explained that she hadn't been able to give V.K. a more specific diagnosis than “adjustment disorder” because she “ha[s] not been able to build up enough trust and enough time with him in rapport, because there have been inconsistent appointments.”

[17] Father has not shown that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother and Father's third child was born in September 2025.

2.   DCS also alleged, and the trial court found, that V.K. is a CHINS under Section 31-34-1-2. But because we affirm the trial court's CHINS adjudication under Section 31-34-1-1, we need not address whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that V.K. is also a CHINS under Section 31-34-1-2. See Q.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 92 N.E.3d 1092, 1103 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.