D.A., Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] D.A. (Mother) appeals the trial court's adjudication of her minor children, Aa.D., Aar.D., and A.A. (collectively, the Children), as children in need of services (CHINS).  ¹ She contends that the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) presented insufficient evidence to support the CHINS determinations.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Aa.D., Aar.D., and A.A. were born to Mother, respectively, in June 2010, March 2014, and February 2017. Due to Mother's use of substances, including methamphetamine, DCS first became involved with the family in March 2017 through CHINS and informal adjustment cases. The Children remained in relative care, eventually under established guardianships, for about three years. The guardianships were terminated in December 2020, as Mother had purportedly attained sobriety and financial stability.

[4] In December 2024, DCS became involved with the family once again due to Mother's substance use. She was using methamphetamine and had left the Children with their maternal great-grandmother (Grandmother) for several weeks without maintaining contact. Mother told Grandmother that she was entering treatment but instead she traveled to Florida with her new boyfriend, Kenneth Hahn (Boyfriend). As a result, the Children were adjudicated CHINS. Mother obtained treatment and was cooperative during the CHINS cases, which eventually closed in 2025 with a safety plan that Boyfriend, who lived with Mother and the Children and was retired, would be the sober caregiver for the Children if Mother relapsed.

[5] Within a few months of the CHINS cases closing, the events underlying the instant action occurred while Boyfriend was out of the country. That is, on the afternoon of September 11, 2025, while intoxicated, Mother drove Aar.D. and A.A. to a softball field for Aar.D.’s game. On the way, Mother struck a mailbox and then proceeded to the game without stopping.

[6] Chief David Huffman of the Frankton Police Department responded to the reckless driving dispatch, along with Deputy Mason Francis of the Madison County Sheriff's Department. They located a damaged vehicle parked near the softball field, and Mother eventually approached them and acknowledged that she had hit a mailbox while two of her children were in the car. Based on their training and experience, Chief Huffman and Deputy Francis observed signs that Mother was under the influence of alcohol, including slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness on feet, requiring her to sit down during their conversation. Mother told Chief Huffman that she had “a few” drinks before leaving for the ballpark, but to Chief Huffman she appeared to have had “more than a few.” Transcript at 11. Subsequent field sobriety tests conducted by Deputy Francis indicated that Mother was impaired. Mother was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) endangering a child, a Class A misdemeanor, and leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor.²

[7] As a result of this incident, DCS received a neglect report, and Family Case Manager (FCM) Kelcie Snyder conducted the initial assessment by speaking with the officers at the scene, the Children, and Grandmother. On September 12, 2025, DCS sought authorization to file CHINS petitions and a request to take the Children into custody.³ The trial court granted both requests, and on September 15, 2025, DCS filed petitions alleging that the Children were CHINS. In addition to the OWI allegations and the family's past DCS history related to substance abuse, DCS alleged that Mother, Father, and Boyfriend had failed to ensure that the Children have a “safe and sober caregiver at all times” and “a safe and stable home free of substance use.” Appendix at 37-38.

[8] Mother denied the neglect allegations, claiming both that she was not impaired and that the Children were not in the vehicle when she struck the mailbox. She told DCS to wait for the test results from the blood draw that was taken upon her arrest. Further, she rejected FCM Frank Wilkerson's offer to participate in Family Recovery Court. Mother told FCM Wilkerson, whom she had also worked with in the prior CHINS matter, that she “would not do anything” until after the CHINS fact-finding hearing. Transcript at 41. Due to Mother's stated unwillingness to voluntarily participate in services, FCM Wilkerson did not make referrals or offer drug screens prior to the fact-finding hearing, which occurred on November 3, 2025.

[9] At the fact-finding hearing, DCS called both Chief Huffman and Deputy Francis to testify regarding the events of September 11, 2025, and their investigation. FCMs Snyder and Wilkerson also testified and, among other things, expressed Mother's lack of cooperation in this CHINS matter. FCM Wilkerson recommended a substance abuse assessment, random screens, and homebased casework for Mother and possibly therapy for the Children.

[10] DCS also called Mother as a witness. Mother testified that she was unemployed and that Boyfriend had been providing for her and the Children since December 2024. She acknowledged her past DCS history related to substance use but claimed that she had not used methamphetamine since December 2024. Mother noted that she had successfully participated in intensive outpatient treatment and passed random screens for drugs and alcohol throughout the earlier CHINS proceedings, but she refused to answer when asked if she had drunk alcohol after the CHINS cases were closed in 2025. Mother also denied that any of the Children were in the vehicle when she struck the mailbox.

[11] Boyfriend testified on Mother's behalf that he had not seen her use drugs and had only “rarely” seen her intoxicated while living with her since December 2024. Id. at 52. Boyfriend acknowledged that he did not observe her on September 11, 2025, as he had been in South Africa for two weeks visiting family.

[12] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The court then issued its written order two weeks later, concluding that the Children were CHINS. In its findings of fact, the court specifically found, contrary to Mother's testimony, that she had admitted to Chief Huffman that two of the Children were in the car when she hit the mailbox. The court also included findings related to the officers’ observations regarding Mother's intoxication and Mother's history with DCS related to “a significant history [of] substance use.” Appendix at 32. And the court found that the recent CHINS cases “closed with a safety plan that [Boyfriend] would be the sober caregiver ․ in the event that Mother relapsed” but that Boyfriend was out of the country on the date of the OWI incident. Id. Further, the court found that “Mother has not maintained sobriety and had been drinking alcohol.” Ultimately, the court concluded:

8. The Children's physical or mental health condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the children's parents to provide the children with a sober care giver at all times and a safe and stable home free of substance use.

9. Coercive intervention of the court is necessary to ensure the parents participate in services aimed to teach the parents skills necessary to provide safe care and supervision of the children.

Id. at 33.

[13] The matter proceeded to disposition on December 16, 2025. After a brief hearing, the court adopted the recommendations in the predispositional report filed by DCS and ordered Mother to, among other things, complete a parenting assessment and comply with all recommended services, complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all treatment recommendations, submit to random drug screens, and participate in individual counseling.

[14] Mother now appeals, claiming that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence that the Children's condition was seriously impaired or endangered as a result of Mother's conduct and that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary to meet their needs. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[15] In reviewing a CHINS adjudication, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Matter of E.K., 260 N.E.3d 901, 909 (Ind. 2025). We will consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decisions and the reasonable inferences therefrom. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014).

[16] Further, where the trial court sua sponte supplements its order with findings of fact and conclusions, we consider whether the evidence supports the findings and whether those findings support the judgment. Matter of E.K., 260 N.E.3d at 909. But we review issues not covered by the findings under the general judgment standard, meaning we will affirm the court's decision if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id.

Discussion & Decision

[17] “Indiana's juvenile law is founded on the parens patriae power of the State and the courts to step into the shoes of parents, guardians, or custodians when necessary to safeguard a child's best interests.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Courts need not wait to intervene until a tragedy occurs. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[18] The primary focus in CHINS law is on assisting families in crisis by getting children the help that parents are not willing or able to provide. Matter of E.K., 260 N.E.3d at 909. In such proceedings, courts focus on protecting children, not punishing parents. Id. “Indeed, the courts and DCS must make ‘all decisions ․ in consideration of the best interests of the child or children concerned,’ [Ind. Code] § 31-10-2-2(2), with ensuring a child's safety ‘the most important consideration,’ I.C. § 31-10-2-1.5.” Id. To advance the best interest of children during CHINS proceedings, our trial courts are vested with broad discretion in determining whether the substantive requirements of the applicable CHINS statute are satisfied. Id.

[19] During a CHINS fact-finding hearing, DCS must prove each element of the alleged CHINS category by a preponderance of the evidence. I.C. § 31-34-12-3. Here, DCS alleged, and the trial court agreed, that the Children were CHINS under I.C. § 31-34-12-3, which provides in relevant part:

A child is a child in need of services 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 ․; 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.

When determining CHINS status under this statute, particularly whether coercive intervention is needed, courts should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard, to avoid punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them. In re D.J. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580-81 (Ind. 2017).

[20] Regarding I.C. § 31-34-12-3(1), which Mother calls “the endangerment prong,” she contends that the trial court's conclusion is based on the trial court's finding that two of the Children were in the vehicle during the OWI incident. Appellant's Brief at 9. She argues that this finding “rests solely on a disputed admission [to Chief Huffman] that Mother denies making.” Id. Further, even if they were in the vehicle, Mother asserts that DCS “produced no evidence that the children were actually affected by the incident.” Id. And she claims that the recent prior CHINS cases “ended with a successfully closed case and nine months of demonstrated sobriety before the September incident.” Id.

[21] We reject Mother's invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility. In light of conflicting testimony, the trial court made a credibility determination and chose to believe Chief Huffman's testimony that Mother admitted to him that two of the Children were in the vehicle when she struck the mailbox. The evidence shows that Mother was intoxicated while caring for the Children and that she drove two of them in this state on September 11, 2025, causing an accident for which she failed to stop. These actions occurred less than three months after the prior CHINS cases were closed and resulted in criminal charges being filed against Mother.

[22] Further, Boyfriend, who was supposed to be the Children's sober caregiver under the safety plan that allowed the cases to close, had left Mother alone to care for the Children for two weeks while he was out of the country. Boyfriend did this despite knowing that Mother continued to drink alcohol and that she had a substantial history of substance abuse and related CHINS cases and DCS involvement dating back to 2017 and as recently as June 2025. This decision reflected lack of insight into the seriousness of Mother's substance abuse issues and the danger her substance use posed to the Children.

[23] In sum, the actions of both Mother and Boyfriend endangered the Children by not ensuring that they always had a safe, sober caregiver and resulted in at least two of the Children being placed directly in harm's way. Mother's lengthy history of substance abuse and related DCS involvement supports the inference that the Children would continue to be seriously endangered by Mother's use of substances without further treatment and services.

[24] Mother argues, however, that DCS failed to show the need for coercive intervention by the court. Mother notes that Boyfriend testified that “she was not using drugs or drinking to excess” and that he was home and present most of the day to be a sober caregiver if needed. Appellant's Brief at 9. She also claims that DCS “never tested whether voluntary engagement was possible” in the eight weeks leading up to the fact-finding hearing. Id.

[25] Again, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. The trial court was not required to trust that Boyfriend would protect the Children, especially because he left the country so soon after the prior CHINS cases closed and did not ensure that the Children had a sober caregiver while he was gone. Although he wanted to quibble about how much or how often she drank, Boyfriend knew that Mother was not sober.

[26] Regarding Mother's other point, that DSC failed to provide services before the fact-finding hearing, the evidence is clear – she refused services until after the hearing. Both FCM Snyder and FCM Wilkerson testified regarding Mother's refusal to cooperate once the new CHINS cases were filed. FCM Wilkerson further testified that Mother expressly rejected his offer to participate in Family Recovery Court and indicated that she “would not do anything” until after the fact-finding hearing. Transcript at 41. Mother made plain that she was not willing to engage in services offered by DCS without the coercive intervention of the court, and she presented no evidence of her own voluntary engagement in services leading up to the fact-finding hearing. Cf. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 581 (reversing for insufficient evidence that coercive intervention was necessary where, by the time of the fact-finding hearing, the parents had cooperated with DCS, “satisfactorily completed all services,” and voluntarily secured additional individual and family services).

[27] We do not find merit to any of Mother's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's adjudication of the Children as CHINS.

[28] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Children's father (Father) does not participate in this appeal, and he has not been involved in their lives for some time.

2.   This criminal case, Cause No. 48H03-2509-CM-2044, remains pending.

3.   The Children were placed by DCS in the care of Grandmother.

Altice, Judge.

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