IN RE: A.H. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] M.R. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's determination that his two children and stepchild are children in need of services (CHINS), arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father is married to R.H. (“Mother”), who does not participate in this appeal. Father and Mother (collectively, “Parents”) have two children together: N.O., born in 2024, and M.O., born in 2025. Mother has another child, A.H., who was born in 2014. A.H.’s biological father is unknown, but the children all lived with Mother and Father.

[3] When M.O. was born in May 2025, her cord blood tested positive for cocaine. After receiving a report that M.O. was a drug-exposed infant, the Department of Child Services (DCS) conducted an assessment with Parents. Despite M.O.’s test results, Parents both denied using illegal drugs. They submitted to drug screens for DCS on May 30 and June 2. Mother's screens were negative for all illegal substances, but Father tested positive for cocaine, fentanyl, and opiates on May 30 and for cocaine, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, and opiates on June 2. After learning of these results, Father admitted to using cocaine socially on weekends, but he couldn't explain the positives for fentanyl, benzodiazepines, or opiates. Father maintained that Mother didn't use any illegal substances and suggested that “maybe [she] was exposed to cocaine during sexual intercourse.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 61. Additionally, Father had a pending criminal case from 2024 for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 5 felony possession of cocaine.

[4] On June 3, DCS filed petitions alleging that the children are CHINS. DCS recommended removal from Father due to his positive screens, and Father agreed to leave the home so the children could remain in Mother's care. DCS referred Parents to Cordant Health Solutions for random drug screens. Family Case Manager (FCM) Samantha McCoy also referred Father for substance-abuse treatment, as Father had initially told DCS he wanted to go to rehab. But Father didn't show up for the referral. In July, he pled guilty in his 2024 criminal case to Level 6 felony possession of cocaine as a lesser included offense and was sentenced to two years suspended to probation. As a condition of his probation, he was required to participate in alcohol-and-drug services, but he never did. Throughout the month of July, Father didn't respond to any of FCM McCoy's communications. He later became more responsive, and when FCM McCoy tried to talk to him about going to rehab, he “stated he no longer needed it.” Tr. p. 57.

[5] For Mother's part, most of her drug screens were negative. But on July 23, her screen was positive for norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl, and a low level of fentanyl was detected. As a result, DCS removed the children from Mother and placed them in foster care. The children were later placed in relative care, where they have since remained. Mother denied any drug use and thought her screen may have been positive “due to having intercourse” with Father. Id. at 39. After the children's removal, Father moved back in with Mother, and they had supervised visitation with the children at the supervising agency. Mother also participated in home-based case management, and Father participated in Fatherhood Engagement.

[6] Mother tested positive for norfentanyl again on August 5, September 19, and September 29. Fentanyl was also detected in her September 19 screen, but not at a high enough level to be positive. Mother repeatedly told DCS that the substances must have “got[ten] in [her] system ․ through contact with [F]ather.” Id. at 56. Since the referral to Cordant in June, Father missed 56 call-ins and 22 tests. He didn't start screening until September, but all of his screens after that were negative.

[7] The fact-finding hearing was held in November. Father testified that he'd detoxed at home and that his last illegal substance use was five or six months ago. He acknowledged that he hadn't participated in any substance-abuse services, and when asked if he would do so, he said, “I don't need that ․ but if that's the way to have my children, ․ then yes, I will do that.” Id. at 13. Father maintained that Mother never used any illegal substances. Mother also denied using illegal substances and believed that her positive screens were due to exposure through Father.

[8] Darrin Frazier, the visitation supervisor and Fatherhood Engagement provider, recommended that Father participate in a substance-abuse assessment and services to help him maintain sobriety. Mother's home-based caseworker testified that even if Mother didn't use drugs herself, she could benefit from substance-abuse education to learn how Father's use has impacted the children. Forensic toxicologist Cynthia Whiteman, who is also the Vice President of Operations for Cordant, opined based on Mother's drug screens that there was either ongoing fentanyl use or accidental ingestion or exposure. She explained that even when someone gets fentanyl in their system from environmental exposure, “they would usually know that they're being exposed” because “the dose has to be high enough” and they have to be “in direct contact for an ex[t]ended period of time,” so “they'd start to feel the effects of the absorption or erroneous ingestion.” Id. at 76. Whiteman also testified that there isn't sufficient scientific research on whether a person can get fentanyl in their system through sexual intercourse.

[9] After the hearing, the trial court adjudicated the children to be CHINS. The following month, the court held a dispositional hearing and issued an order setting forth various requirements for Parents. At the time of disposition, Father was in jail because he'd been charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine after the fact-finding hearing. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 183, 190, 225.¹

[10] Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Father contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's determination that the children are CHINS. We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only upon a showing that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We consider only the evidence that supports the decision and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id.

[12] Here, DCS alleged that the children are CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1.² A child is a CHINS under this statute if, before the child turns 18,

(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.

Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1. An adjudication under this statute “requires 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 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied.

[13] There is sufficient evidence that Parents’ actions and inactions have seriously endangered the children. When M.O. was born, her cord blood tested positive for cocaine. At the time, Father had a pending criminal case for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 5 felony possession of cocaine. While still living with Mother and the children, Father tested positive for cocaine, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, and opiates. Although the children initially remained in Mother's care after removal from Father, they had to be removed after Mother's July 23 drug screen was positive for norfentanyl and a low level of fentanyl was detected. Mother had three more positive screens for norfentanyl in August and September, one of which also had a low level of fentanyl. Mother repeatedly told DCS that the substances must have gotten in her system through contact with Father. But Whiteman explained that when someone gets fentanyl in their system from environmental exposure, they would feel the effects of the fentanyl. This is so because it would have to be a high enough dose and they would have to be in direct contact with the substance for an extended period of time. And even if we were to accept Mother's claim that her positive screens from July to September were due to contact with Father, this claim directly undermines Father's testimony that he hadn't used illegal drugs in five or six months.

[14] The evidence also establishes the second and third elements—that the children's needs are unmet and are unlikely to be met without State coercion. Despite M.O. being a drug-exposed infant, Parents denied any illegal drug use and suggested that Mother “was exposed to cocaine during sexual intercourse.” After testing positive for cocaine, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, and opiates, Father admitted to using cocaine but had no explanation for the other positives. Although he initially told DCS that he wanted to go to rehab, when FCM McCoy referred him for substance-abuse treatment, he didn't show up for the referral, and he later told FCM McCoy “he no longer needed” treatment. When Mother first tested positive for norfentanyl, she claimed it was “due to having intercourse” with Father. But Whiteman testified that there isn't sufficient scientific research on whether a person can get fentanyl in their system through sexual intercourse. While all of Father's drug screens from September to November were negative, he didn't start screening until September and missed 56 call-ins and 22 tests since the referral to Cordant in June. Despite Father's testimony that he detoxed on his own, no longer used illegal drugs, and “do[es]n't need” substance-abuse services, Frazier recommended that he participate in a substance-abuse assessment and services to help him maintain sobriety. And Mother's home-based caseworker testified that even if Mother didn't use drugs herself, she could benefit from substance-abuse education to learn how Father's use impacts the children. Finally, Father testified that he'd participate in substance-abuse treatment if the court ordered it, but he was already ordered by a court to participate in treatment—as a condition of his probation in his 2024 criminal case, he was required to participate in alcohol-and-drug services, but he never did.

[15] Father has not shown that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As a result of the new drug charge, the State filed a notice of probation violation in Father's 2024 possession case. In January 2026, Father pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in the new case and was sentenced to one year, with 215 days suspended to probation, to be served consecutively to the sentence in his 2024 case. In February, Father admitted to violating his probation in the 2024 case and was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence (545 days) in the Department of Correction.

2.   DCS also alleged that M.O. is a CHINS under Section 31-34-1-10 because she was born with a controlled substance in her body, but the trial court adjudicated the children CHINS under Section 31-34-1-1 only.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.