C.R., Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al., Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] C.R. (Mother) appeals the dispositional order entered following the adjudication of her two minor children, M.R. and A.R. (collectively, Children), as children in need of services (CHINS). Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to complete a psychological evaluation.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Mother and L.R. (Father) are married and have a long history with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) dating back to 2001. When DCS became involved this time, Mother and Father (collectively, Parents) had the care and custody of M.R. and A.R., born in August 2013 and July 2015, respectively, and their adult son was also living in the home. Parents both struggle with mental health issues.

[4] On November 13, 2025, Father punched Mother in the jaw with a closed fist during an argument. M.R. heard the argument and then came into the room to find Mother holding her jaw and crying. That same day, Mother sought treatment at the hospital for her jaw and reported the domestic abuse. DCS became involved and investigated the matter.

[5] Kylan Brandt, a DCS family case manager, spoke separately with Mother, Father, and M.R. on November 14. Mother reported to Brandt that she has “begged” for help from DCS in the past and that Father had held a gun to her head the previous year. Appendix at 27. Mother opined that “if DCS does not provide services she is going to end up dead” and that Father “will be dead too.” Id. Had she not been on house arrest, Mother believed there would have been a gun involved in this recent incident too. Mother also reported financial struggles, which caused the altercation, and fear of being homeless. Further, Mother asked Brandt if Father could return home, as he was sleeping in his car

[6] When Brandt spoke with Father, he acknowledged ongoing arguments in the home during which Children would regularly intervene. He explained that he often sleeps in his car as a result of arguments and that both he and Mother have untreated mental health needs.

[7] Later that day, Brandt informed Mother that DCS would be requesting removal of Children due to domestic violence. Mother responded that she had been “begging for mental health services” and that DCS had “failed her family for years.” Id. at 28. Mother indicated that she had not been to the doctor in years but that when she did “go for her mental health they said something about her mood.” Id. While speaking with Mother, Brandt observed Mother to “continuously exhibit erratic behavior, yelling, and uncontrollably hysteric.” Id.

[8] Brandt's investigation also revealed:

[Parents] have extensive substantiated history with [DCS] pertaining to untreated mental health and substance use dating back to September 2001. [Parents] have unsubstantiated history with the department pertaining to untreated mental health and domestic violence dating back to July 2015. In previous assessments with DCS it has been reported [Mother] has shown signs of bi-polar disorder as well as suicidal ideation. Despite [Mother's] diagnosis listed in previous reports[, she] refused to sign a medical release form to confirm diagnosis. Furthermore, [Mother] attempted suicide and threaten[ed] her life on multiple occasions during previous and current DCS involvement.

Id. at 26.

[9] On November 18, 2025, DCS filed a petition alleging Children were CHINS because Parents had failed to provide a stable home free of neglect, domestic violence, and untreated mental health disorders. The allegations in the petition align with the facts set forth above. At the initial hearing held that same day, the trial court ordered the removal of Children from Parents’ care “due to exposure to domestic violence and untreated mental health issues of parents.” Id. at 66.

[10] On December 3, 2025, the trial court held a hearing where Parents waived their rights to a CHINS factfinding hearing. The trial court adjudicated Children CHINS based on the allegations in the petition and the supporting preliminary inquiry report filed by DCS. By agreement of the parties, the trial court then proceeded to disposition.

[11] As relevant here, Mother agreed to participate in the following recommended services: “Home Based Case Work with parenting education, a Domestic Violence Assessment and follow all recommendations, and to continue mental health treatment through Eskenazi.” Id. at 79. She, however, contested DCS's request for her to submit to a psychological evaluation.¹ As a result, that same day, the trial court held a contested dispositional hearing on the need for Mother to have a psychological evaluation.

[12] DCS explained its basis for requesting a psychological evaluation, noting the serious allegation of domestic violence in the home, Mother's statement that without DCS services both she and Father will be dead, and indications that Mother has untreated bipolar disorder as well as suicidal ideation and attempts. DCS also informed the trial court that Mother had only recently started mental health treatment through Eskenazi and that DCS did not believe that Eskenazi provides “the level of evaluation ․ needed to address mother's mental health concerns.” Transcript at 19.

[13] Mother acknowledged that she had not had a psychological evaluation as part of her intake with Eskenazi. But she told the court that she did not feel an evaluation was needed, as she had been in therapy for fifteen years and had previously submitted to evaluations. Upon questioning by the court, Mother admitted that she had “been out of services for maybe roughly two years” and that she did not currently have a psychiatrist. Id. at 20-21. Mother claimed that she had tried medication for many years in the past, but it did not work.

[14] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that there was a “factual basis for the psychological evaluation.” Id. at 29. The court explained:

I think that the harm of completing it is very minimal compared to the information that can be gleaned from that because I don't want to get down the path in three months and then say we need to do it when we're working towards reunification and everyday matters and I'd like to know what mother's needs are, specifically her psychological needs and the fact that there has been a disconnect at some point with her treatment and yet she did report to me that she's been in treatment for 15 years but not for the last two years and then the information contained in the preliminary inquiry ․ included information that mother said that she had concerns of whatever's going on, it was specifically that if a DCS [sic] does not provide services, she's going to end up dead and regarding, and I don't know if that is with respect to the gun or not, but whatever that looks like. Also, mother's behavior in court is indicative that she might need something more than just therapy and I would like to address whatever the family's needs are early on.

Id. at 29-30.

[15] Thereafter, on December 8, 2025, the trial court issued its written dispositional decree in which it ordered, among other things, that Mother participate in a psychological evaluation. Mother now appeals only that part of the dispositional order. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

[16] Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to participate in a psychological evaluation when she was already engaged in mental health therapy at Eskenazi. She contends that DCS failed to present evidence that Mother's existing treatment was inadequate or that an additional evaluation was needed.

[17] After a CHINS adjudication, the trial court has broad discretion in determining what programs and services to order the parent to complete to effectuate reunification. Matter of R.G., 130 N.E.3d 1171, 1180 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. The requirements must relate to “some behavior or circumstances” revealed by the evidence supporting the CHINS determination. See id. (quoting In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1258 (Ind. 2012)). Thus, we review a dispositional order in a CHINS case for an abuse of discretion, reversing “when the court's action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences drawn therefrom.” In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744, 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (internal quotations omitted), trans. denied.

[18] By her own admission, Mother had gone without treatment for her long-term mental illness for two years prior to Children's removal. At the time of the dispositional hearing, Mother had just started therapy through Eskenazi without completing a psychological evaluation. She did not feel that an evaluation was needed, nor did she think years of medication management had helped in the past. Though Mother did not specifically identify any past diagnosis during the hearing, she also did not actively dispute that she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had suicidal ideations in the past.

[19] Further, when Brandt investigated the neglect report, Mother acknowledged needing mental health services, but she refused to sign a medical release form to confirm her diagnosis and treatment history. DCS also expressed concerns to the trial court that Eskenazi could not perform the level of evaluation needed in this case. And based on its own observations, the trial court noted that Mother's behavior in the courtroom was indicative of her needing more than just therapy, which is what she was currently getting at Eskenazi.

[20] In sum, Mother's mental health was clearly an issue relevant to the CHINS matter, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering her to obtain a current psychological evaluation. As the trial court observed, the information gleaned from the evaluation would be helpful in working toward reunification and providing Mother with the treatment she needs.

[21] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father agreed to participate in all services recommended by DCS: “Father's Engagement, a Domestic Violence Assessment and follow all recommendations, and to continue mental health services through Eskenazi.” Id.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.