IN RE: M.N.H. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] A.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's order adjudicating her minor child M.N.H. (“Child”) a child in need of services (“CHINS”). She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child was born to Mother in January 2021. Child's father is unknown. Mother's boyfriend, M.J.B. (“Custodian”), lives in the same home with Mother and Child. Child has “pretty significant medical needs,” including cerebral palsy and a history of seizures.¹ Transcript Volume II at 36. He has “a G-tube and a J-Tube for his feedings as well as his medical needs.” Id. On May 4, 2025, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report alleging that Child was the victim of neglect because Mother “has been on substances for a long time and has a history of heroin and methamphetamine use.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 19.² The report further noted that Child was “recently admitted to the hospital due to weight loss.” Id. When DCS attempted to investigate the report, the family case manager “was denied access to come out and see the home, [Child], and speak with Custodian.” Id. at 20. Mother would not speak to DCS and told the family case manager to “contact her lawyer.” Id. During an unannounced visit to Mother's home on June 5, 2025, the family case managers noticed “a very strong odor of marijuana emitting from the building”³ but their knocks on the door went unanswered. Id.

[3] Following a hearing on June 26, 2025, the trial court granted a motion to compel ordering Mother to cooperate with DCS and its investigation of the neglect report. The family case managers contacted Mother by telephone to inform her they were coming to the home in accordance with the court order. At that time, Mother and Custodian lived in the home with Child. Mother stated that “today wouldn't work” for her and that Child was not home. Id. Mother did ultimately let the family case managers into the home at 5:00 p.m. The family case managers observed Child being “hooked up to his J-tube feedings for the entire home visit.” Id. They noted that Child “did gag and vomited up saliva/mucus” and that Mother stated “[C]hild does this a lot and that is why they are not making a big deal about it.” Id. The family case managers observed “Mother's behaviors to be very unpredictable as she was erratic and yelling,” “slamming doors,” and asking them “to stop talking to her stating that she needed to go on a walk to cool off.” Id. The family case managers administered an “instant oral screen for Mother which [ ] indicated a positive result for Methamphetamine.” Id. Custodian refused to submit to a screen but informed the family case managers that it would be positive for marijuana. Due to the absence of a sober caregiver in the home, DCS contacted law enforcement and removed Child from the home on an emergency basis.

[4] On June 27, 2025, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1. On June 30, 2025, the court held a protective custody hearing. The court found it was in Child's best interest to be removed from the home and placed in relative care with Custodian's mother. On July 24, 2025, the court held an initial hearing during which both Mother and Custodian denied the allegations in the CHINS petition. On September 25, 2025, the court held a modification hearing after DCS alerted the court that there had been “an emergency change of placement” because Child's relative placement “could no longer take care of him.” Transcript Volume II at 27-28. Due to Child's complex medical needs, Child was placed at “Vernon Health and Rehabilitation in Wabash where he has full around-the-clock care.” Id. at 28.

[5] The court held a factfinding hearing on October 17, 2025. Mother failed to appear but counsel appeared on her behalf. DCS presented the testimony of Family Case Manager Supervisor Allison Tefft (“FCMS Tefft”), Family Case Manager Supervisor Karly Folk (“FCMS Folk”), Family Case Manager Kimberly Mathews (“FCM Mathews”), Family Case Manager Elizabeth Stansbury, and Dr. Aaron Brown (“Dr. Brown”) from Cordant Health Solutions. Mother's counsel presented no witnesses. Custodian testified on his own behalf.

[6] FCMS Tefft testified that the CHINS allegations were based on the fact that Child “has high medical needs and that [Mother] was not sober, that she was using illegal substances, and that [Child] didn't have a sober caregiver.” Id. at 38. FCMS Tefft stated that Mother was hostile and uncooperative with DCS. She stated that she was “concerned that Child would continue to be exposed to methamphetamine if he was in Mother's care” and that Child has “medical needs” that require “a sober caregiver and a safe living environment.” Id. at 39-40. She emphasized that “Mother has tested positive for methamphetamine during the assessment phase of this case,” that there was no indication that Mother “is sober currently,” or that Mother “wouldn't be a safety threat to [Child].” Id. at 40.

[7] FCM Mathews testified that Mother was hostile and “irate” with DCS and refused to cooperate with DCS's attempts to obtain medical information regarding Child despite a court order that she do so. Id. at 49. FCM Mathews stated that Mother's refusal to sign a release of information (“ROI”) form and her failure to appear at the factfinding hearing resulted in DCS not being able to “get pertinent information from Vernon Health regarding [Child's] health, whether his weight, the changing feeding schedules, any complications that might have arose [sic].” Id. at 50. She stated that Mother also refused to sign an ROI giving DCS access to Mother's substance abuse assessment. FCM Mathews opined that “the coercive intervention of the Court is necessary” to obtain Mother's compliance “so that [DCS] can provide the best care possible for Child and also provide [Mother] with the services she needs” for a safe reunification. Id. at 51.

[8] FCMS Folk testified that during a home visit, she observed Mother behaving erratically and unpredictably while present with Child. She explained that this prompted DCS to perform an instant drug screen on Mother and to request a screen from Custodian. She also observed Child gagging while feeding and that Mother stated that this was a normal occurrence. Mother would not allow FCMS Folk to explain DCS procedures. FCMS Folk stated that Child needed a caregiver and that there was not a responsible caregiver in the home.

[9] Dr. Brown testified that additional testing of the drug screen sample taken from Mother on June 26, 2025, “confirmed positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine as well as delta-9 THC.” Id. at 65. Dr. Brown further stated that Child's drug screen taken from a sample obtained a few hours after Mother's sample while Child was at the placement's home “confirmed positive for methamphetamine.” Id. Dr. Brown explained that “the only substances that will confirm positive for methamphetamine are those that either directly contain it or metabolize to it,” but that due to Child's young age, it was “unlikely that it was known intentional use” that caused his positive result. Id. at 67. Dr. Brown explained that “[s]ignificant amounts of secondary exposure can cause positive results especially in children[ ] [i]f that exposure happens consistently or within a short period of time before the sample is collected[.]” Id.

[10] Custodian testified that he has been in a romantic relationship with Mother since Child's birth, that Mother is Child's sole caregiver, and that he “help[s] her out.” Id. at 97. He stated that the only reason Child was taken to the hospital just prior to DCS involvement was because one of his medical tubes needed to be replaced. Custodian stated that he is aware of Mother's drug use, including methamphetamine, because she would use drugs in front of him. Custodian stated that although Mother's drug use was concerning, he was not concerned with her ability to care for Child while “under the influence” of methamphetamine because he had “watched her do it.” Id. at 108. When asked if he and Mother were “still together” as of the date of the factfinding, Custodian responded, “I think so.” Id. at 103. When asked if he had “any understanding as to why” Mother failed to appear for the factfinding, Custodian responded, “No, I do not.” Id. He indicated that he was in a vehicle with Mother on the way to the factfinding hearing when “[a]t an intersection or stopping point, she just removed herself from [his] vehicle” and left. Id.

[11] On November 26, 2025, the court issued extensive findings of fact and an order adjudicating Child a CHINS. Following a dispositional hearing on December 19, 2025, the court entered a dispositional decree ordering Mother to participate in reunification services including a substance abuse assessment, parenting assessment, and a psychological evaluation. The court further ordered Mother to submit to random drug screens, meet with medical/psychiatric personnel and take all prescribed medications as directed, and to pay child support in the amount of $47.00 per week.

Discussion

[12] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's determination that Child is a CHINS. In reviewing a trial court's determination that a child is in need of services, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and consider only the evidence which supports the court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. As no statute expressly requires formal findings in a CHINS factfinding order and because neither party requested them under Ind. Trial Rule 52(A), we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment to any issue covered by the findings, and we review any remaining issues under the general judgment standard pursuant to which a judgment “will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. at 1287 (citation omitted). We will reverse a CHINS determination only if clearly erroneous. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). 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. Id. To the extent Mother does not challenge the court's findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

[13] Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 provides:

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:

(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.

(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 20-2026, § 2 (eff. Jul. 1, 2026)). The statute does not require a court to wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, a child is a CHINS when the child is endangered by parental action or inaction. Id.

[14] The trial court here entered seventy-one findings of fact and conclusions thereon in support of its CHINS adjudication. Mother states that she “objects to” twenty-nine of those findings that she asserts are “either not supported by the evidence, do not show the elements of the statute were met, or were misinterpreting evidence.” Appellant's Brief at 25. However, as noted above, unchallenged findings are accepted as true. Thus, we may simply assess whether the court's unchallenged findings support its conclusion that Child is a CHINS. See generally In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (ruling that where findings are unchallenged on appeal, the appellate court may “simply determine whether the unchallenged findings are sufficient to support the judgment”), trans. denied.

[15] Unchallenged finding of fact 25 provides that “[M]other's Drug Screen was positive for Amphetamines, Methamphetamine, THC, and the Delta 9 variant of Marijuana. Dr. Brown states that [Mother's] drug screen showed no tampering or irregularity and that the results are valid and accurate.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 117. Unchallenged finding of fact 26 states that “[M]other's Drug Screen is consistent with actual use of Methamphetamine and not exposure to it.” Id. Unchallenged findings of fact 31 and 33 provide that Child “tested positive for Methamphetamine” and that “a Drug Screen positive for Methamphetamine can only be if the fluids from the body contain Methamphetamine and that [Child's] Drug Screen would only test positive for Methamphetamine if Methamphetamine was present in [Child's] body.” Id. at 118. Unchallenged finding of fact 51 rules out Child's relative placement as being the source of Child's exposure to methamphetamine as Custodian's mother was also screened and was negative. Finally, the court found that Custodian testified that he was well aware of Mother's drug habits, that she used in front of him, and he had personally witnessed Mother care for Child while “under the influence of methamphetamine, or illegal substances.” Transcript Volume II at 108.⁴

[16] This Court has held that a parent under the influence of illegal drugs in the presence of her child has essentially abandoned the child without any responsible adult care and supervision. In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We conclude that the trial court's findings as to Mother's methamphetamine use in the presence of and while caring for Child support the court's conclusion that Mother's actions or inactions have seriously endangered Child. See, e.g., Matter of D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (affirming CHINS adjudication and concluding that the parents’ methamphetamine use presented a serious danger to the special needs child; although no evidence suggested they used methamphetamine in the child's presence, the mother was child's sole caregiver and thus “necessarily” cared for the child while using methamphetamine; testimony indicated that parents using methamphetamine are unable to provide adequate supervision for children), trans. denied.⁵

[17] As for the court's conclusion that Child's substantial medical and special needs are unlikely to be met without the coercive intervention of the Court, we similarly conclude that the unchallenged findings support this conclusion. Unchallenged findings of fact 13-15 document Mother's refusal to communicate or cooperate with DCS regarding Child's medical information as well as the results of Mother's substance use assessment. Mother had indicated that she would sign ROIs regarding such information at the factfinding hearing but then inexplicably failed to appear. Indeed, Mother does not challenge the court's finding of fact 60 which states that she simply exited the vehicle on the way to the hearing. Mother also does not challenge finding of fact 42 which found that family case managers were forced to file a motion to compel during their initial assessment of the CHINS allegations due to Mother's refusal to cooperate. The evidence underlying these unchallenged findings supports an inference that judicial intervention is required to ensure that a sober caregiver meets Child's substantial needs.

[18] Viewing the evidence that supports the court's CHINS adjudication and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, there is ample evidence that Child's physical or mental condition is seriously endangered as a result of Mother's failure to supply Child with necessary supervision to ensure his complex medical needs are met and that Child requires care that is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. In light of the evidence set forth above and in the record, we cannot say that the court's CHINS adjudication is clearly erroneous.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record reveals that Child has been diagnosed with “Autism, Bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, Cerebral palsy, Chalazion of left eye, Eczema, Failure to thrive-child, Gastrostomy tube dependent, Global developmental delay, HIE (hypoxic-ischemic encephalon), Hypotonia.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 32-33.

2.   The record indicates that Mother and Custodian “had a previous CHINS case regarding [C]hild that was dismissed.” Transcript Volume II at 6.

3.   The building “housed multiple apartment units” and it was “unclear where the odor was coming from.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 20.

4.   We observe that a summary of this testimony is contained in findings of fact 59 and 63. Mother challenges these findings as not indicative of Child's endangerment. However, Mother admits that the court's finding that Custodian witnessed her care for Child while under the influence of methamphetamine is “accurate testimony” but complains that the finding “focuses on the parent rather than the allegations in the petition.” Appellant's Brief at 33. We find Mother's assertions unpersuasive.

5.   Mother's reliance on D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 150 N.E.3d 292, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), in support of her argument that there was no evidence her methamphetamine use endangered Child is misplaced. In D.S., we reversed a CHINS adjudication because “despite [the mother's] admitted drug use, DCS did not present any evidence that [the mother] used marijuana while the [c]hild was in the home or that DCS had ever perceived [the mother] to be under the influence of drugs.” Here, DCS presented evidence that Mother used methamphetamine while Child was in the home and that she necessarily cared for Child while under the influence of illegal substances. Further, unlike the child in D.S., Child has substantial medical and special needs that require close supervision.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.