IN RE: S.C. (2021)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] On February 21, 2020, while F.C. (“Father”) was driving S.C., a nine year-old, to a family friend's (“Friend”) house where E.K. (“Mother”) would pick S.C. up for visitation, S.C. and Father's girlfriend (“Girlfriend”) got into an altercation. A verbal argument escalated when S.C. threw an iPad at Girlfriend. Girlfriend grabbed S.C. by the neck and shoulder and shook her, resulting in bruising and scratches along S.C.’s neck, shoulder, and collarbone. After S.C. was dropped off, the Friend immediately took her to the hospital for treatment for her injuries. DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Natalie Elder reported to the hospital that day, and S.C. informed her that Girlfriend had inflicted the injuries. The following day, FCM Elder attempted to interview Father and implement a family safety plan, but Father was not cooperative. Further, Father stated that he did not believe that the injuries had been caused by the altercation in the car. S.C. was then placed with Mother. Father refused to cooperate with the juvenile court's visitation orders, did not express a willingness to have Girlfriend move out of his home, and did not believe he needed to address the discipline and violence issues in S.C.’s and Girlfriend's relationship by participating in services. Following a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated S.C. to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Father appeals arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile court's determination that S.C. was a CHINS. Because we find that the juvenile court's judgment is supported by the findings and conclusions, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] S.C. was born to Mother and Father in 2010. Father and Mother were divorced sometime before 2015. After the divorce, S.C. lived with Mother until Father was granted custody in 2015. (Tr. Vol. I p. 32) Father testified that Mother did not receive visitation until 2018. Before DCS's intervention, S.C. lived with Father and Girlfriend in New Washington. Parents exchanged S.C. for visits at Friend's home in Jeffersonville so the exchanges could occur at a neutral location.

[3] On February 21, 2020, during the drive to drop S.C., then nine years old, at Friend's home for Mother's visitation, Father drove, S.C. sat in the front passenger seat, and Girlfriend rode in one of the back seats. At some point, S.C. and Girlfriend began arguing. As the argument escalated, S.C. threw an iPad at Girlfriend. Girlfriend then grabbed S.C. by the neck and shoulder and shook her. Immediately after Father and Girlfriend dropped S.C. off at Friend's home, Friend took S.C. to the emergency room because of visible injuries. Mother, after hearing about S.C.’s condition, drove from Indianapolis and met S.C. and Friend at the hospital.

[4] That same day, Elder received and responded to the report of abuse or neglect and visited S.C. in the emergency room. FCM Elder observed S.C.’s injuries and S.C. told her that Girlfriend had inflicted the injuries that day when Girlfriend grabbed her. S.C. explained that she was scared of Girlfriend and did not wish to return to Father's home. FCM also reviewed a recording of the events leading up to the fight on S.C.’s iPad, which corroborated S.C.’s retelling of events.

[5] FCM Elder attempted to interview Father the following morning, but Father was uncooperative. Father did report to FCM Elder that during the trip S.C. and Girlfriend were “bickering like two little sisters.” Tr. Vol. I p. 39. Father speculated that S.C. sustained her injuries from “jumping in the back of the car.” Tr. Vol. I p. 57. When presented with pictures of the injuries, Father did not believe that they had occurred during the altercation in the car, explaining that the altercation “wasn't nothing dangerous.” Tr. Vol. I p. 57. Father told FCM Elder that she could not come into his home, Girlfriend was not present, she did not live there, and he would not give FCM Elder Girlfriend's contact information. A few minutes into FCM Elder's interview with Father, Girlfriend came out of Father's home and spoke with FCM Elder, admitting that she was in an altercation with S.C. but claimed it was self-defense. FCM Elder explained to Father that it would be difficult to ensure Child's safety if Girlfriend remained in the home, but that she would offer to help the family create a safety plan. However, Father stated that he would not sign anything or participate in services.

[6] At an October 22, 2020 fact-finding hearing, Father testified that he had done nothing wrong and had no responsibility for the situation involving S.C. and Girlfriend but admitted that Girlfriend had some responsibility, even if he did not believe that Girlfriend had injured S.C. on purpose. Father felt that he did not need DCS in his life and that S.C. did not need assistance from DCS. Further, Father felt that S.C. was being influenced by Mother in an attempt to undermine his custody.

[7] FCM Benjamin Peterhansen testified that DCS involvement had to continue unless Father addressed the issues of discipline and conflict resolution in his home. FCM Peterhansen explained that, unless Father cooperated, placement at his home could lead to S.C. running away or “another major physical disagreement” that would require S.C. to go to the hospital. Tr. Vol. I p. 25. Further, FCM Peterhansen testified that S.C. had voiced concerns because Girlfriend yelled, threw things, and would push S.C. around inside the home. FCM Peterhansen also testified that, should Girlfriend continue to reside with Father, DCS would ask that she and Father both participate in services, including a parenting assessment, homebased case management, and substance-abuse assessment. FCM Peterhansen testified that DCS still needed access to Father's home to determine whether it was safe and suitable. FCM Peterhansen's feeling was that DCS involvement was necessary due to Father's disregard of S.C.’s safety and mental and physical health. FCM Peterhansen testified that, should the court find S.C. to be a CHINS, it would be DCS's goal to reunify S.C. and Father.

[8] Following the fact finding hearing, Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) Danielle Leucke stated that she believed that S.C. was a CHINS: “My recommendation is that this is a child in need of services. She has self-reported. She has vocalized fear and so I think that she should be taken seriously and so I do believe that she is a child in need of services.” Tr. Vol. I p. 59. Further, Mother had been very cooperative with CASA Leucke, while Father had told CASA Leucke that he had no interest in speaking to her, was mistrustful of her role in the case, and was generally uncooperative. On September 18, 2020, the juvenile court found S.C. to be a CHINS; Father was ordered to cooperate with DCS, assist in making and implementing a protection plan for S.C., complete various parenting assessments and evaluations, and not permit Girlfriend to have any access or communication with S.C. Thereafter, Mother obtained custody of S.C. This CHINS action was also dismissed on December 17, 2020.¹

Discussion and Decision

[9] Father contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's determination that S.C. was a CHINS.

In reviewing a juvenile court's determination that a child is in need of services, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286–1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the juvenile court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. DCS is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 305 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). When a court's order contains specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, we engage in a two-tiered review. Id. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings. Id. Then, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We reverse the juvenile court's judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and conclusions. Id. When deciding whether the findings are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the judgment. Id.

In re C.K., 70 N.E.3d 359, 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Father argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that S.C.’s needs were unlikely to be met without the coercive intervention of the juvenile court. Specifically, he argues that nothing in the record indicated that he “was seriously impairing the physical or mental condition of S.C. from an inability, refusal, or neglect to supply necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. Further, Father argues that his testimony regarding the quality of his home and the care he has provided to S.C. were uncontroverted by other evidence.

[10] A child is a CHINS if, before the child turns eighteen,

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[.]

Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1(1). Evidence of neglect, even if that neglect is allowing abuse by a third party, merits court intervention under Indiana's statute. See In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“The DCS concluded that Child was unsafe in Parents’ home as Father had molested her, and Mother was unlikely to protect Child since Mother did not believe the child abuse had happened.”) Father's arguments that he has done nothing wrong demonstrate an unwillingness to accept responsibility for the situation.

[11] S.C. stated that Girlfriend inflicted the injuries which brought her to the hospital. S.C. has also expressed a fear of Girlfriend and FCM Peterhansen testified that S.C. had voiced concerns because Girlfriend yelled, threw things, and would push S.C. around inside the home. (Tr. Vol. I pp. 9, 26) Further, Father has almost completely refused to cooperate with DCS. FCM Peterhansen explained that, unless Father cooperated, placement at his home could lead to S.C. running away or “another major physical disagreement” that would require S.C. to go to the hospital. Tr. Vol. I p. 25. Father's arguments that he has remedied the situation on his own and does not require DCS intervention or services amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which this court will not do. In re DJ. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–78 (Ind. 2017) (“When reviewing a trial court's CHINS determination, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.”) We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's determination that S.C. is a CHINS.

[12] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While this court dismisses cases which are rendered moot due to a case being “ended or settled, or in some manner disposed of, so as to render it unnecessary to decide the question involved[,]” C.J. v. State, 74 N.E.3d 572, 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting S.C. v. S.B. (In re M.B.), 51 N.E.3d 230, 233 (Ind. 2016) (internal quotations omitted)), this case is not moot due to the potential consequences of a CHINS determination. Ind. Code. section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(iii) states that a termination petition may be filed if the petition alleges that “the child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a [CHINS][.]” Likewise, neither party suggests dismissal of this appeal on the grounds of mootness.

Bradford, Chief Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur.