IN RE: the Matter of D.H. and J.H. (Children in Need of Services) and Je.F. (Mother) and Jo.F. (Father) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Je.F. (“Mother”) and Jo.F. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the trial court's adjudication of two minor children as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Parents raise one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court clearly erred when it adjudicated the children to be CHINS.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother has four children: D.M., born January 17, 2014; D.H., born August 15, 2015; Q.A., born March 10, 2021; and J.H., born July 23, 2024. Father, who is married to Mother, is the father of J.H. and the stepfather of the remaining children. All four children resided with Parents.

[3] In April 2025, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report of domestic violence between the Parents. A DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) conducted a home visit and observed “visible injuries” on Mother. Tr. Vol. 2 at 68. Mother also “admitted that there was an altercation between her” and Father. Id. at 69. Parents and DCS then entered into an informal adjustment, and DCS offered Parents services including family preservation services, skills coaching, substance-use monitoring, and therapeutic support. Parents participated in those services.

[4] On one occasion, Amanda Moore, Mother's family preservation technician, visited Mother and observed that she had a black eye. When Moore asked Mother about it, Mother responded that she was jumping on a trampoline and fell into one of the children's knees. Moore also observed scrapes on one of Mother's legs, and Mother stated that she had slipped and fallen on some rocks.

[5] During the pendency of the informal adjustment, on September 23, DCS received another report of domestic violence between Parents. The same day, Moore visited Mother at her house. Mother informed Moore that she and Father had been arguing and that Father had “punched” her in the face while she was in the shower. Id. at 64. Moore then asked Mother about the injuries she had previously seen, and Mother admitted that Father had caused the black eye when he had “punched her in the face” two weeks prior and that the marks on her leg “were from being drug [sic] through the rocks in the driveway” by Father. Id. Mother also showed Moore an injury on her leg from where Father had thrown a “big can” at her. Id. Moore offered to help Mother leave the home and stay at a hotel or shelter, but Mother “refused.” Id.

[6] DCS attempted to work with Mother to create a safety plan, including finding somewhere for Mother and the children to stay, but Mother “was very adamant that none of that needed to happen.” Id. at 75. As a result, DCS removed all four children from Parents’ care. D.M. and Q.A. were placed with their respective fathers, who were able to provide care and supervision and who each initiated proceedings to modify custody of his child. D.H. and J.H. (collectively, “the Children”) were placed with Father's sister.

[7] DCS then filed petitions alleging that the Children were CHINS.¹ D.H.’s father admitted that D.H. was a CHINS, but Parents denied the allegations. On December 16, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing on DCS's petitions. At the hearing, DCS presented the testimony of Moore and various FCMs who had been involved in the case. In addition, Mother's therapist testified that Mother had reported at an appointment on November 24 that she “had attempted suicide ’cause her husband told her to kill herself.” Id. at 96.

[8] Both Mother and Father testified and denied that any physical violence had occurred between them. However, Mother testified that there had been three “incidents of verbal aggression” since the children were removed. Id. at 37. And she testified that the police had been called to their house three times in the five months since they had moved into their new home.

[9] Following the hearing, the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions thereon. In particular, the court found:

10. The evidence established that the children were repeatedly exposed to frequent verbal altercations, emotional volatility, and adult conflict in the home exceeding ordinary marital disagreements and creating an unsafe and emotionally harmful environment.

11. Mother made inconsistent statements to service providers regarding whether [Father] abused her, at times reporting physical and emotional abuse, and at other times minimizing or denying physical abuse.

12. The Court finds these inconsistencies do not undermine the credibility of the underlying abuse. Rather, the evidence supports that either Mother fabricated allegations to portray herself as a victim, or Mother is a victim who is minimizing [Father's] conduct.

13. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Court finds it far more credible that Mother is a victim of domestic violence who has minimized [Father's] conduct, consistent with recognized dynamics of domestic abuse.

14. During a diagnostic assessment in November 2025, Mother reported suicidal ideation and/or behavior within the preceding three months, which she attributed to [Father] telling her to kill herself.

15. [Father] offered no contradictory testimony or evidence disputing that he made this statement. The Court finds that [Father] told Mother to kill herself and that this conduct materially contributed to Mother's mental health crisis.

16. Mother did not consistently disclose this information to all service providers, impairing effective assessment and safety planning.

17. Mother testified that she was not offered assistance or options to leave [Father] in order to provide a safer environment for the children.

18. The Court finds this testimony is not credible. Mother's own witness, a service provider working with Mother in the home, testified that she personally overheard the family case manager discussing with Mother the option of relocating to a women's shelter as part of the safety plan for the children.

19. The Court finds that Mother was, in fact, offered assistance and alternatives to remaining in the home with [Father], and that Mother rejected or was unreceptive to those options at the time.

20. Mother's drug screens, admitted as Exhibit 17, show that during the Informal Adjustment she consistently tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, frequently at high levels, and consistently tested positive for THC.

21. Although Mother was participating in medically assisted treatment, including buprenorphine, the Court finds that continued positive screens for methamphetamine and amphetamine demonstrate unresolved substance abuse concerns.

22. Drug screens administered after removal continued to test positive for amphetamine, indicating ongoing substance abuse concerns.

23. [Father's] drug screen compliance, admitted as Exhibit 18, reflects that he missed thirteen call-ins and six scheduled drug screens, raising concerns regarding accountability and reliability.

Father's App. Vol. 2 at 185-87.

[10] Based on those findings, the court concluded that DCS had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that “the children's physical or mental condition was seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the parents to supply the children with necessary supervision, care, or protection” and that the Children “require care, treatment, or rehabilitation that they are unlikely to receive without the coercive intervention of the court[.]” Id. at 189. Accordingly, the court adjudicated the Children to be CHINS. Thereafter, the court entered its dispositional order in which it ordered Parents to participate in services. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Parents appeal the court's order adjudicating the Children to be CHINS. As our Supreme Court has stated:

When reviewing a trial court's CHINS determination, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286 (Ind. 2014). “Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and [the] reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. at 1287 (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). When a trial court supplements a CHINS judgment with findings of fact and conclusions [of] law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. We consider, first, “whether the evidence supports the findings” and, second, “whether the findings support the judgment.” Id. (citation omitted). We will reverse a CHINS determination only if it was clearly erroneous. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). A decision is clearly erroneous if the record facts do not support the findings or “if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.” Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997) (citation omitted).

Gr.J. v. Ind. Dep't. of Child Servs. (In re D.J.), 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017) (alterations in original).

[12] DCS alleged, and the trial court found, that Children were CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, which provides that a child is a child in need of services if, before the child becomes eighteen 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; 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.

[13] Our Supreme Court has interpreted that statute to require “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 at 1287. “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child.” N.L. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re N.E.), 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). And, when determining whether a child is a CHINS under Section 31-34-1-1, the juvenile court “should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290.

[14] We first note that Father purports to challenge several of the trial court's findings of fact. However, the entirety of Father's argument on this issue is as follows: “In this particular matter, Father disputes certain Findings of Fact. Namely, Finding of Fact #10, 11, 12, 13, 27, 28, and 29. Appellant Father's App. 183-191. Father also disputes Conclusions of Law #7, 11, and 12, which are based upon the previously-stated disputed Findings of Fact.” Father's Br. at 20. However, Father has not explained how those findings are erroneous or directed us to any evidence in the record to support his argument. Accordingly, we hold that Father has waived those purported issues for lack of cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a); see also York v. Fredrick, 947 N.E.2d 969, 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. As a result, we accept those findings as true. We must now simply determine whether those and the remaining unchallenged findings support the court's judgment. See J.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re A.M.), 121 N.E.3d 556, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

Serious Endangerment

[15] Parents also contend that DCS failed to demonstrate that their actions have seriously endangered the Children. Father argues that he “provided clothing, shelter, educational support, food, medicine and things for the Children” and that the “house was clean and safe.” Father's Br. at 21. And Mother asserts that “the conflicts within the home were exclusively verbal” and that “DCS failed to present any evidence to indicate that the children ever witnessed any episode of domestic violence or any verbal disagreements[.]” Mother's Br. at 10-11.

[16] The trial court's findings demonstrate that the Children were repeatedly exposed to verbal altercations and “adult conflict,” that Mother at times admits to physical and emotional abuse but other times minimizes or denies it, that Mother “is a victim of domestic violence,” and that Mother rejected offers of alternative placement for her and Children away from Father. Father's App. Vol. 2 at 185. Further, Father admitted that he and Mother had “disagreements” roughly “three times a week” while “the kids were in the home.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 122. Additionally, Mother admitted to Moore that, prior to the Children's removal, Father had caused a black eye, punched her in the nose, dragged her through rocks, and threw a large can at her legs. And Mother told her therapist that she had attempted to commit suicide after Father encouraged her to do so. Thus, the findings demonstrate that the Children were in an environment rife with violence prior to their removal.

[17] In addition, both Parents disregard the court's findings that Mother “consistently” tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine “at high levels” during the pendency of the informal adjustment prior to the Children's removal, and she continued to use drugs after DCS removed them. Father's App. Vol. 2 at 186. And Father missed thirteen call-ins and six scheduled drug screens.

[18] The trial court's unchallenged findings—that there is a history of domestic violence between Parents and that Mother uses methamphetamine—support the court's conclusion that Parents’ actions or inactions have seriously endangered the Children.

State Coercion

[19] Parents also contend that DCS failed to demonstrate that the Children's needs would not be met without the coercive intervention of the court. Specifically, Father contends that he “was voluntarily doing ․ services and complying with DCS’ requests.” Father's Br. at 21. And Mother maintains that she was “voluntarily participating” in services and “actively utilizing” the skills she had learned. Mother's Br. at 12.

[20] But even if Mother and Father are voluntarily participating in some services, those services have not remedied the problem. Indeed, despite the services that Parents began following the informal adjustment in April of 2025, Mother and Father continued to be involved in episodes of domestic violence, and Mother continues to use drugs. Stated differently, even with the services in which Parents have voluntarily engaged, they are still not able to provide the Children with a stable home free from drugs and domestic violence. The trial court's findings support its conclusion that the coercive intervention of the court is needed.

Conclusion

[21] Father has waived his challenge to any findings of fact for failing to make a cogent argument on appeal. And the court's findings support its conclusion that the Children were seriously endangered by Parents’ actions and that the Children require care, treatment, or rehabilitation that they are unlikely to receive without the coercive intervention of the court. The trial court did not err when it adjudicated the Children to be CHINS. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[22] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   From context, it appears that DCS also filed petitions alleging that D.M. and Q.A. were CHINS. However, given their placement with their fathers who sought to obtain custody, the court did not adjudicate them CHINS.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.