IN RE: The Matter of H.L. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] T.L. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's order adjudicating her son, H.L. (“H.L.”), to be a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”).¹ Mother specifically argues that the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating H.L. to be a CHINS. Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating H.L. to be a CHINS.

Facts

[3] The evidence most favorable to the CHINS adjudication reveals that Mother is the parent of five children, H.J., who was born in October 2013; K.J., who was born in October 2014; R.L., who was born in July 2019; A.L., who was born in December 2021 (collectively “the older children”); and H.L., who was born in February 2025. This appeal concerns only the CHINS adjudication of H.L.

[4] In May 2023, DCS filed a petition alleging that the older children were CHINS because of concerns about Mother's mental health. Following a June 2023 factfinding hearing, the trial court adjudicated the older children to be CHINS and ordered Mother to participate in services. In addition, following the factfinding hearing, DCS removed the older children from Mother's home and placed them together in foster care.

[5] During a visit with Mother during the older children's CHINS case, guardian ad litem Brittany Lismon (“GAL Lismon”) noticed that Mother exhibited “a very high level of paranoia[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 42). GAL Lismon asked Mother if she had a history of paranoia, and Mother told GAL Lismon that Mother's mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Based on her interactions with Mother, GAL Lismon recommended that Mother participate in a psychological evaluation. Mother's home-based therapist also recommended that Mother participate in a psychological evaluation.

[6] In October 2024, Dr. Daniel Westmoreland (“Dr. Westmoreland”), a clinical psychologist, evaluated Mother, who was five months pregnant with H.L. Dr. Westmoreland met with Mother for six hours, and his evaluation consisted of a clinical interview, a cognitive examination, and the administration of psychological tests. In addition, Dr. Westmoreland considered collateral information, including information from Mother's service providers. Specifically, Mother's therapist (“Mother's therapist”) had reported to Dr. Westmoreland that Mother had presented with “maladaptive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in response to chronic physiological and psychological (mental health) symptoms.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 7). In addition, Mother's therapist had reported that Mother had “struggle[d] with historical events that sometimes distort[ed] her reality[.]” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 7).

[7] In November 2024, Dr. Westmoreland completed his sixteen-page detailed report, which included his clinical observations and the results of Mother's psychological tests. In this report, Dr. Westmoreland noted that Mother had “initially presented as somewhat extroverted and cooperative[.]” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 9). However, as the evaluation had progressed, Mother had “bec[o]me more guarded regarding her history.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 9). In addition, Mother had “denied experiencing any trauma and [had] attempted to present herself in a way that suggested no significant mental health issues despite reports from her service providers.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 9). Further, Mother “had difficulty articulating her views and suggested her way of thinking may be superior to others. Hence, there were indications of mild delusional thinking and moderate to severe thought and speech disorganization.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 9). In addition, according to Dr. Westmoreland, Mother “appear[ed] to have difficulty with working memory, which c[ould] have a negative impact on her ability to care for herself and/or her children.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 17). Further, Dr. Westmoreland noted that the results of Mother's psychological tests suggested that Mother had attempted to portray herself in a positive light and that she had portrayed herself as more psychologically well-adjusted than most people.

[8] “Based on a review of available records, observation, psychological testing, and the clinical interview,” Dr. Westmoreland gave Mother a provisional diagnosis of unspecified schizophrenia. (Ex. Vol. 1 at 17). Dr. Westmoreland explained that his diagnosis was “not definitive” because he “thought it would be prudent to allow service providers and other mental health professionals [to] monitor her ․ for six months before a definitive diagnosis was made.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). Further, Dr. Westmoreland recommended that Mother “work with the team psychiatrist to determine the most appropriate course of pharmacological intervention to address her mental health needs.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 17). Dr. Westmoreland specifically noted that due to Mother's “proneness to not comply, one option may be a once-per-month injectable psychotropic medication.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 18). In addition, Dr. Westmoreland noted that once Mother began taking the psychotropic medication, she was “likely to gain a better insight into herself and how her disorganized speech and thoughts [were] maladaptive, and need[ed] treatment and monitoring.” (Ex. Vol. 1 at 18).

[9] When H.L. was born in February 2025, a DCS assessment family case manager (“the assessment FCM”) went to the hospital to speak with Mother because Mother had an open CHINS case with the older children and DCS still had concerns about Mother's mental health. Mother denied having any mental health diagnoses. She acknowledged that she had completed a psychological evaluation but told the assessment FCM that she did not agree with Dr. Westmoreland's diagnosis and that she was not willing to take psychotropic medication. Because of concerns about Mother's untreated mental health issues and her ability to parent an infant, DCS removed H.L. from Mother and placed him in foster care with the older children.

[10] In March 2025, DCS filed a petition alleging that H.L. was a CHINS. Because Mother did not agree with Dr. Westmoreland's provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia, in April 2025, Mother scheduled and participated in an initial assessment with psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Hoffman (“Dr. Hoffman”). Dr. Hoffman met with Mother for one hour and based her evaluation on Mother's self-reporting. During the assessment, Mother denied having paranoid or disorganized thoughts. Although Dr. Hoffman read Dr. Westmoreland's evaluation, she did not gather collateral information. Following the assessment, Dr. Hoffman diagnosed Mother with a major depressive disorder, a social anxiety disorder, and a stress-related disorder. Further, Dr. Hoffman recommended that Mother take medication for depression rather than for schizophrenia.

[11] The trial court held the CHINS factfinding hearing in May 2025. At the time of the hearing, DCS had filed petitions to terminate Mother's parental relationships with the older children based upon concerns about Mother's unresolved mental health issues. At the hearing, the trial court heard the facts as set forth above. Dr. Westmoreland testified regarding his provisional diagnosis of Mother and his recommendations for her treatment. Further, Dr. Westmoreland's report was admitted into evidence.

[12] In addition, DCS family case manager Katrina Carr (“FCM Carr”) testified that although Mother had been participating in services, she had not followed Dr. Westmoreland's recommendations to address the provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia. Further, according to FCM Carr, Mother's visits with H.L. were supervised because Mother had “not adequately engaged in services to treat her mental health so that she c[ould] safely participate in parenting time[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 32). Based upon Mother's behavior during visits with H.L., including “outbursts[,]” FCM Carr did not believe that the infant would be safe in Mother's care. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 32). In addition, FCM Carr opined that H.L's needs would not be met without the coercive intervention of the court.

[13] GAL Lismon also testified at the hearing and recommended that Mother follow Dr. Westmoreland's recommendations to address the provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia. Further, GAL Lismon had safety concerns about H.L. living with Mother because of Mother's untreated mental health issues, which would interfere with her ability to care for H.L. GAL Lismon specifically testified that Mother had told her that evil spirits were coming after Mother and that Mother had, at times, talked to the evil spirits. In addition, GAL Lismon did not believe that Mother would participate in services without the coercive intervention of the court.

[14] In addition, Dr. Hoffman testified that her report had been based upon Mother's self-reporting and Dr. Hoffman's observations of Mother during the one-hour assessment. According to Dr. Hoffman, when she had assessed Mother, Mother had “not expressed any psychotic symptoms” to her and had not shown any disorganized speech patterns or behavior. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 50). Based on her assessment of Mother, Dr. Hoffman concluded that Mother was not suffering from schizophrenia. Rather, Dr. Hoffman diagnosed Mother with, among other things, a major depressive disorder. Further, Dr. Hoffman recommended that Mother take an anti-depressant, which Mother was doing. During cross-examination, Dr. Hoffman acknowledged that it was “possible that additional information would have changed [her] mind” about Mother's diagnosis. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 54).

[15] Mother testified that she disagreed with Dr. Westmoreland's provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia and that she had been receiving treatment for depression. According to Mother, she loved H.L., she did not need assistance from DCS to care for him, and she would continue to seek mental health treatment without the coercive intervention of the court. Mother further testified that she had never told GAL Lismon that evil spirits were talking to her and that she had, at times, talked to the evil spirits. According to Mother, GAL Lismon had given “false testimony” that day. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 71).

[16] In July 2025, the trial court issued an order adjudicating H.L. to be a CHINS. The order provides, in relevant part, as follows:

7. On October 30, 2024, Dr. Westmoreland conducted a Court-ordered psychological evaluation of Mother.

8. Dr. Westmoreland interviewed Mother and collected collateral information regarding her mental health history and symptoms.

9. After completing his evaluation, Dr. Westmoreland provisionally diagnosed Mother with Unspecified Schizophrenia.

10. Dr. Westmoreland found Mother to be guarded and portrayed herself in an overly positive light, as though she had superior mental health when compared to other people.

11. Dr. Westmoreland's findings are consistent with what the Court observed about Mother in the courtroom.

12. Dr. Westmoreland opined that Mother would need ongoing medication management and would need to be held accountable by providers working with her.

* * * * *

14. Mother disagreed with Dr. Westmoreland's findings and is reluctant to follow his recommendations without the coercive intervention of the Court.

* * * * *

21. While Mother has demonstrated consistency in some areas, she has not fully addressed the mental health concerns and has shown resistance to appropriately treating her mental health.

* * * * *

29. GAL has also witnessed Mother having mental health issues and on one occasion, Mother began telling the GAL that spirits talked to her.

30. The GAL has also witnessed a high level of paranoid thinking from Mother.

* * * * *

32. Based on what she has witnessed as to Mother's mental health, the GAL does not believe that Mother can care for ․ a baby with a high level of need.

33. The Court observed Mother's demeanor in the courtroom throughout the trial and she exhibited unnecessary paranoid reactions to the GAL's testimony as well as behavior consistent with Dr. Westmoreland's observations.

34. Mother engaged a private psychiatrist, Dr. Hoffman on her own who provided a differing opinion regarding Mother's mental health diagnosis.

35. Dr. Hoffman's evaluation was less comprehensive than Dr. Westmoreland's evaluation, as it was based on Mother's self-reporting and after one hour of observation.

36. During the assessment with Dr. Hoffman, Mother denied experiencing paranoid thinking or delusions and Dr. Hoffman did not have any collateral information at the time of assessment.

(App. Vol. 2 at 75-78).

[17] Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that “Mother's untreated mental health and her refusal to take medication [was] a danger to” H.L. (App. Vol. 2 at 79). The trial court further concluded that “without appropriately addressing her untreated schizophrenia,” Mother would “continue to endanger the physical and mental well-being” of H.L. (App. Vol. 2 at 80). In addition, the trial court concluded that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary “to ensure [H.L.]’s safety and well-being.” (App. Vol. 2 at 80).

[18] Mother now appeals.

Decision

[19] Mother argues that the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating H.L. to be a CHINS. She specifically contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication. We disagree.

[20] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action. In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Therefore, DCS had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that H.L. was a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. See id. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this evidence. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.

[21] A CHINS adjudication focuses on the child's condition rather than the parent's culpability. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to provide proper services for the benefit of the child, not to punish the parent. Id. at 106. A CHINS adjudication in no way challenges the general competency of a parent to continue her relationship with her child. Id. at 105.

[22] Here, the trial court entered sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon. “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.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. 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. (cleaned up). Under the general judgment standard of review, the reviewing court “may look both to other findings and beyond the findings to the evidence of record to determine if the result is against the facts and circumstances before the court.” C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Further, we accept unchallenged findings as true. In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744, 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[23] Lastly, we note that, as a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “This deference recognizes a trial court's unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court[ ] only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Id.

[24] Here, the trial court adjudicated H.L. to be a CHINS pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 31-34-1-1, which provides that a child is a CHINS 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.

[25] The Indiana Supreme Court has synthesized this statutory language, explaining that a CHINS adjudication requires proof of “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.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.

[26] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication. Specifically, the gravamen of her first argument is that the trial court erred in relying on Dr. Westmoreland's report, testimony, and provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia rather than relying on Dr. Hoffman's report, testimony, and diagnosis of, among other things, a major depressive disorder. However, the trial court found that Dr. Hoffman's evaluation was less comprehensive than Dr. Westmoreland's evaluation because Dr. Hoffman's evaluation was based on Mother's self-reporting and only one hour of observation. In contrast, Dr. Westmoreland's evaluation was based on six hours of observation, which included a clinical interview, a cognitive examination, and the administration of psychological tests. Further, Dr. Westmoreland consulted with service providers, and also observed, during the evaluation, examples of Mother's delusional thinking and disorganized thoughts and speech. We further note that after hearing the testimony of the witnesses as well as observing Mother's demeanor at the hearing, the trial court determined that Mother's behavior, including unnecessary paranoid reactions to GAL Lismon's testimony, was consistent with Dr. Westmoreland's observations. The trial court did not err in relying on Dr. Westmoreland's evaluation. Mother's argument is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475.

[27] Mother further argues that DCS “did not show that her mental health issues endanger[ed] H.L.[ ]” (Mother's Br. 14). However, our review of the evidence reveals that, in October 2024, Dr. Westmoreland gave Mother a provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia and recommended that she take a psychotropic medication. Mother disagreed with Dr. Westmoreland's diagnosis and never followed his recommendation, leaving Mother's mental health issues untreated. FCM Carr testified that based on Mother's untreated mental health issues, which were exemplified by her erratic behavior during visits with H.L., FCM Carr did not believe that H.L. would be safe in Mother's care. In addition, GAL Lismon testified that she had safety concerns about H.L. living with Mother because of Mother's untreated mental health issues. Specifically, GAL Lismon was concerned that Mother's untreated mental health issues would impair her ability to care for H.L. This evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Mother's untreated mental health issues seriously endangered H.L.’s physical and mental well-being.

[28] Lastly, Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence that she was unlikely to meet H.L.’s needs without the coercive intervention of the court. However, our review of the evidence reveals that FCM Carr opined that H.L.’s needs would not be met without the coercive intervention of the court. Further, GAL Lismon did not believe that Mother would participate in services without the coercive intervention of the court. This evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary to ensure H.L.’s safety and well-being.

[29] There is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication, and the trial court did not clearly err in adjudicating H.L. to be a CHINS. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[30] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the time of the CHINS factfinding hearing, H.L.’s father had not been identified.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.