IN RE: Tr.H. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] T.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's determination that her child, Tr.H. (“Child”) is a child in need of services (“CHINS”). On appeal, Mother argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the trial court's determination. We, however, conclude that the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Mother raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court's determination that Child is a CHINS is clearly erroneous.

Facts

[3] Child was born in May 2021 to Mother and J.C. (“Father”). Father is incarcerated, and Mother and Child have lived with maternal grandparents (“Grandparents”) since Child's birth. Mother has a history of drug abuse and untreated mental health issues. Mother is unemployed and does not have a driver's license.

[4] Grandparents primarily cared for Child, and Mother's mental health declined significantly in 2024. Mother was hearing voices, talking to imaginary people, talking in the third person, and acting as if God was speaking through her. Mother began to get aggressive, and Grandparents struggled to deescalate her behaviors. Mother would wake Child in the middle of the night, “hold[ ] him down,” and forcibly brush Child's teeth to the point that Child would be screaming. Tr. Vol. II p. 72. In the mornings, Mother would “shove a tablet in [Child's] face and give him a bottle.” Id. at 60. Mother would then sit on the porch smoking cigarettes and leave Child unsupervised. Grandparents installed cameras in the residence so they could intervene if Child was left unsupervised. Mother would scream and yell at Grandparents if they did not agree with her. Grandfather heard Mother talking to herself on the porch, and Mother said, “no, I'm not sending him to you yet. You promised me a place to stay and money to live on. When you ․ do all the things you promised, then we'll talk about that.” Id. at 62.

[5] In May 2025, Grandparents attempted to intervene because Mother wiped Child aggressively for more than ten minutes, and Child was screaming. Mother began yelling at Grandfather, and the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) and law enforcement were contacted to assist Grandparents with Mother's erratic behavior. Law enforcement attempted to have Mother obtain a psychiatric evaluation, but Mother refused. DCS spoke with Mother, and Mother was “speaking in [the] third person” and “[c]laiming that God was telling her to do these things.” Id. at 39. Mother told the Family Case Manager that she was “fighting Satan's army” and that she was planning to leave Grandparents’ residence in the middle of the night with Child. Id. Mother said that Grandparents would not know where Mother and Child were going.

[6] On May 15, 2025, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1. Child was removed from Mother's care and placed with Grandparents, and Mother was required to leave Grandparents’ residence.

[7] At the initial hearing on DCS's petition, Mother interrupted as follows:

[Mother]: That's actually real God that speaks through me. It's true with power. So, it's part of my religion. And, so, God was literally standing up for me. It's not me speaking in the third-person. Or making any attempts to speak in the third-person. It's actually God who's speaking on my behalf.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Mother]: And trying to explain some other powerful and gifted things that I was going through that other people could – couldn't understand. And tried to make sense of it on their own. So, that's like my real religion that God was really speaking through me.

THE COURT: Okay. And that's-

[Mother]: -I want to mention that that's true and God was saying that God's self.

Tr. Vol. II p. 20.

[8] Amy Watts, a clinical service specialist for DCS, attempted to assess Mother's mental health and treatment needs by reviewing videos of Mother and reviewing DCS's documentation. Watts was concerned because Mother appeared to be having auditory hallucinations; Mother believed that she had a “special gift” and was able to “communicate with a higher power in a way that other people don't”; Mother was “following [God's] directives”; and Mother was “having conversations in a way that appeared to be hallucinogenic as well as delusional.” Id. at 81. Watts had safety concerns about Mother parenting a toddler while having such hallucinations or delusions.

[9] Although DCS requested that Mother participate in a psychological evaluation and an inpatient stay at the Behavioral Hospital, Mother refused and denied needing mental health treatment. Mother said that “God specifically told her that she's not allowed to go through any mental health evaluation.” Id. at 91. Mother was unemployed, but she said that “she does not need a job as she will be rewarded by God for spiritual works.” Id. at 92. Mother said that the funds would “be paid directly to her bank account.” Id. Mother stated “multiple times that she only listens to God.” Id. at 93.

[10] A fact finding hearing was held on June 30, 2025. At the time of the hearing, Mother was living in a hotel room that Grandparents rented for her, but Grandparents planned to stop financially supporting Mother in July 2025. Grandparents would not allow Mother back into their residence.

[11] Mother testified that she was working for God and that she would start getting financial payments in July. Mother knew this because “God told [her].” Id. at 98. Mother claimed to have powers, be “religiously important,” and be “in a true relationship with Jesus Christ.” Id. at 102. Mother testified that Child also “has the ability to hear Jesus speak” and that “God told [her] that [Child] can hear him talking.” Id. at 101, 112. Mother further claimed that she can “send messages to [herself] in the future.” Id. at 103. Mother testified that she does not have a mental illness or “[m]ental health problems of any kind,” that she has a “strong mind,” and that she goes “through mind-strengthening with God.” Id. at 105.

[12] When asked if she would send Child to God if God asked her to do so, Mother responded:

A. If and when God said something exactly and precisely, it would be exact and precise. But I [ ] always obey God's orders. It's true. And always going to be true․

Q. Okay. So, you'll follow whatever he says no matter what.

A. Yeah. And it's always going to be for my own best interest. And everyone around me [sic] best interest. So it's obvious.

Id. at 115. Mother then said that she would not harm Child because “God doesn't tell people to harm people.” Id. at 116. Later, however, Mother testified that, if God told her and Child to fast for twenty days, she would do that “[a]s long as it was truly God.” Id. at 118.

[13] On July 31, 2025, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon and granted DCS's petition, finding Child to be a CHINS. The trial court found:

11. [Child] needs care and protection that he was not receiving and is unlikely to be provided without the coercive intervention of the Court.

12. [Child's] emotional and physical condition is seriously impaired. [Child] needs protection and supervision that he was not getting until the Department removed him from [Mother]. [Mother] indicated that she would follow God's orders, even if it concerns [Child]. [Mother's] mental state seriously endangers [Child's] wellbeing.

13. Maternal grandparents are unable to protect [Child] from Mother's aggressive behaviors and will not allow her back into their home.

14. [Mother] is unable to emotionally, physically, and financially support [Child] on her own. [Mother] is unwilling to get a job due to her belief that God will send money to her. Additionally, [Mother] often leaves [Child] unsupervised in order to speak with God and to do God's work.

15. The evidence is clear that [Mother] suffers from some mental health disorder that is not being treated by any mental health treatment or medication. This is demonstrated by [Mother's] conduct during all the hearings held in this manner, her own testimony, and her statements to others.

16. The intervention of this court is warranted because the child will not get the treatment, supervision, and care the child needs unless the same is ordered or provided by the Department.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 53.

[14] Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine on August 12, 2025. The trial court then issued its dispositional order on September 3, 2025. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[15] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's determination that Child is a CHINS. CHINS proceedings are civil actions; thus, “the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010)); see Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. R.L. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 144 N.E.3d 686, 689 (Ind. 2020).

[16] Here, the trial court entered, sua sponte, findings of fact and conclusions thereon in granting the CHINS petition. “ ‘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.’ ” N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475 (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014)). 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. (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997)). We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only if it is clearly erroneous. R.L., 144 N.E.3d at 689.

[17] DCS must prove three elements for a juvenile court to adjudicate a child as a CHINS: (1) the child is under the age of eighteen; (2) one of eleven different statutory circumstances exists that would make the child a CHINS; and (3) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475.

[18] Here, the trial court found Child was a CHINS under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 (general neglect), 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.

[19] “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not [to] punish parents.” N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. A CHINS adjudication is not a determination of parental fault but rather is a determination that a child is in need of services and is unlikely to receive those services without the intervention of the court. Id. at 105. “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child ․ [T]he acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention.” Id. (citations omitted). “A CHINS finding should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290.

A. Findings of Fact

[20] Mother first argues that several of the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Mother challenges Findings 6 and 7, which provide:

6. FCM Johnson went to the family residence to speak with [Mother] about the report. While there, [Mother] spoke of a “secret plan” in which she stated to FCM Johnson, “when she moves, it's going to be a secret move, and they're going to be cut out of the situation so they can't contact her”.

7. During the conversation between [Mother] and FCM Johnson, [Mother] shifted from first-person to third-person discourse, asserting her identity as God. She declared, “I am God, and I am intervening.”

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 50. Mother argues that FCM Johnson did not testify regarding these statements. These statements are found in a DCS preliminary inquiry report, not in FCM Johnson's testimony. FCM Johnson, however, testified that Mother said she had a plan to leave with Child in the middle of the night and that Mother was speaking in the third person, claiming that God was telling her what to do. Any error in the trial court's findings is harmless as evidence was presented of Mother's plan to leave with Child secretly and Mother's habit of speaking in the third person.

[21] Next, Mother challenges Finding 10, which provides: “[Child] has primarily been cared for by his maternal grandparents. Mother frequently leaves the toddler unsupervised for prolonged durations. [Grandfather] has indicated that he often assumes the responsibility of feeding [Child] and attending to his basic needs due to [Mother's] insufficient caregiving.” Id. Mother claims that she was Child's primary caregiver and did not leave him unattended for long periods. Grandfather, however, testified that Grandparents primarily cared for Child and that Mother left Child unsupervised. Mother's argument is merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The finding is not clearly erroneous.

[22] Mother challenges Finding 13, which provides: “On one occasion, Maternal Grandfather saw Mother brushing [Child's] teeth in a manner that appeared forceful, despite the child expressing distress by crying. As a result, Maternal Grandfather has observed that [Child] now experiences difficulty when brushing his teeth and appears fearful when assistance is required.” Id. Mother contends that no testimony supports the finding that Child now experiences difficulty brushing his teeth. While we agree that the evidence does not support this portion of the finding, DCS did present evidence of Mother forcefully and aggressively brushing Child's teeth in the middle of the night. Any error in the finding is harmless given the overwhelming evidence in support of the CHINS adjudication.

[23] Mother challenges Finding 15, which provides: “[Grandfather] fears [Child's] safety if he was to be returned to [Mother]. [Grandfather] does not believe that Mother can appropriately care for [Child] and worries that her mental health may lead her to cause serious harm to [Child].” Id. at 51. Mother claims Grandfather did not testify that Mother hurt Child or that he thought Mother would hurt Child. Grandfather testified that Mother aggressively brushed Child's teeth and aggressively wiped Child to the point that Child was screaming. Grandfather also testified that Mother's behavior was unsafe toward Child. The trial court's finding is supported by the evidence.

[24] Mother challenges Finding 19, which provides: “[Mother] sustained a traumatic brain injury at the age of sixteen and has a history of substance use, notably involving methamphetamine. These circumstances may have played a significant role in her subsequent cognitive decline.” Id. Mother argues that no evidence was presented that Mother used methamphetamine or suffered a traumatic brain injury. Grandfather testified that he witnessed Mother under the influence of drugs and that Mother suffered a severe car accident as a teenager, which resulted in Mother's head going through the windshield and a severe cut on her face. Although the evidence presented at the fact finding hearing does not demonstrate that Mother suffered a traumatic brain injury or her specific use of methamphetamine, it is clear that Mother suffered injuries in a severe car accident as a teenager and that Mother has a history of drug usage.¹ Any error in the finding is harmless.

[25] Next, Mother challenges Finding 21, which provides:

Ms. Watts is highly concerned about the child's safety and well-being but indicated that assessing the level of risk posed by [Mother] is extremely difficult at this time because she has refused to engage in mental health services and has not been formally diagnosed. Ms. Watts expressed that [Mother] requires mental health services and an evaluation in order to determine the nature and severity of her condition and to assess how DCS can best provide her and the child with services before the child is returned to her care.

Id. at 51. Mother argues that Watts did not examine Mother, was unaware of Mother's prior therapy history, did not have enough information to assess Mother's parenting abilities, and only testified in generalities. Mother is requesting this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Mother testified that she had refused a psychological evaluation, and Watts testified Mother appeared to be having auditory hallucinations and delusions. Watts had safety concerns about Mother parenting a toddler while having such hallucinations or delusions. The finding is not clearly erroneous.

[26] Next, Mother challenges Finding 24, which provides: “When asked whether she would do anything God told her to do, [Mother] testified, ‘Yes’, indicating full deference to these perceived communications from God. Later in her testimony, when asked whether she would follow a divine instruction requiring her child to fast for ten days, she again stated she would comply if God truly told her to do so.” Id. at 51. Mother argues that this finding is merely a recitation of a witness's testimony. Regardless, this finding accurately reflects Mother's testimony, except that Mother actually testified she and Child would fast for twenty days if God told her to do so. Any error in the finding is harmless.

[27] Mother challenges Finding 26, which provides: “[Mother] has not remedied the issues that led to DCS’ involvement and does not plan to willingly engage in any services without the Court's intervention.” Id. at 52. Mother argues that she had no immediate plans to leave Grandparents’ residence with Child, that she had previously seen a psychiatrist, and that she voluntarily engaged in home-based case work, supervised visits, and drug screens. Again, this is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Mother specifically testified that she refused to participate in a psychiatric evaluation, and Mother's mental health was the reason for Child's removal from her care. The finding is not clearly erroneous.

[28] Finally, Mother challenges Findings 25 and 28, which provide:

25. Although [Mother] later stated that she does not believe God would tell her to harm her child, her testimony as a whole reflects an unstable belief system that poses serious risk to the child's wellbeing.

* * * * *

28. [Mother's] unaddressed mental health issues affect the child in a negative manner.

Id. at 52. Mother argues that no evidence was presented that she is a serious risk to Child's wellbeing and that God would not ask her to harm anyone. DCS, however, presented evidence that Mother's mental health had already impacted Child. Mother aggressively brushed Child's teeth in the middle of the night and aggressively wiped Child until he was screaming. Mother also failed to adequately supervise Child, requiring Grandparents to monitor and step in. Mother testified that she would obey whatever God told her to do, including Mother and Child fasting for twenty days. These findings are not clearly erroneous.

B. Serious Endangerment

[29] Next, Mother challenges the trial court's finding that her mental state seriously endangers Child's wellbeing. The trial court found that Mother clearly suffers from a mental health disorder, and Mother does not specifically challenge that finding. The trial court also found that Mother's mental state seriously endangers Child's well-being, and we conclude that the evidence supports that finding.

[30] Mother relies upon In re E.Y., 93 N.E.3d 1141, 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), for the proposition that a parent's mental illness alone will not support a CHINS determination. In E.Y., this Court reversed a CHINS determination where “DCS presented no evidence relevant to the impact, if any, of Mother's mental illness on Child's condition.” E.Y., 93 N.E.3d at 1146. Here, however, DCS presented evidence that Child was significantly impacted and endangered by Mother's mental health, and we find this case distinguishable from E.Y.

[31] DCS presented evidence that Mother has hallucinations and delusions that God is speaking through her. Child witnessed Mother's erratic behavior, and some of Mother's behaviors were directed at Child. Mother aggressively and forcefully brushed Child's teeth in the middle of the night, and Mother wiped Child aggressively for ten minutes until Grandparents intervened. Mother failed to adequately supervise Child, who was a toddler, and Mother stated that she would follow God's orders, even if God ordered her and Child to fast for twenty days. Mother is unemployed and not financially stable, but she believes that God will soon start paying her. Mother told DCS that she planned to leave with Child in the middle of the night, and Grandparents would not know where they were. Given this evidence, the trial court's finding of serious endangerment of Child is not clearly erroneous.

C. Coercive Intervention

[32] Finally, Mother argues that DCS failed to present evidence that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary. This CHINS element “guards against unwarranted State interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families ‘where parents lack the ability to provide for their children,’ not merely where they ‘encounter difficulty in meeting a child's needs.’ ” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017) (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287) (italics in original). “[C]ourts ‘should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’ ” Id. (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290). “Doing so avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them.” Id. at 581.

[33] Mother contends that Child was being provided with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and supervision while Mother and Child lived in Grandparents’ residence. DCS, however, presented evidence that Grandparents, not Mother, were providing Child with these items, and Mother's escalating behavior made the situation in Grandparents’ residence unsustainable. Despite Mother's extreme behavior, she refused to participate in a psychological evaluation because God told her not to do so, and she emphatically denied that she has a mental illness. Although Mother is unemployed and financially unstable, Mother believes that God will soon begin paying her. Given Mother's refusal to participate in mental health evaluations and treatments, the trial court's finding that coercive intervention was necessary is not clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

[34] The trial court's finding that Child is a CHINS is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

[35] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine shortly after the fact finding hearing.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.