IN RE: A.S. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The newborn daughter of J.S. (Father) tested positive for cocaine at her birth. Both Father and the child's mother also tested positive for drugs. When an Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) caseworker arrived at Father's home two days later, she found no running water, no drinking water, an inoperable refrigerator, little food, and dirty, cluttered conditions. The oldest of Father's three children, then 11, was trying to assemble the new baby's crib by herself. Without it, the youngest child—the newborn infant—had nowhere safe to sleep in the home.

[2] The caseworker also discovered that the 11-year-old's prescription medication for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) likely contained counterfeit pills. DCS removed all three children (collectively, Children) from their parents’ home and petitioned for a ruling that they were children in need of services (CHINS). After a fact-finding hearing, the trial court granted DCS's petition. Father appeals, arguing the evidence does not support the court's determination that Children were CHINS. We affirm.

Facts

[3] Father's three daughters are Jo.S., born in 2014; A.S., born in 2017; and W.S., born September 1, 2025. A.V. is the mother of A.S. and W.S. and had cared for Jo.S. for most of the child's life. L.W. is the biological, non-custodial mother of Jo.S.

[4] On September 2, 2025, DCS received a report that W.S. had been born the day before and her umbilical cord screen was positive for cocaine. Her mother, A.V., screened positive for amphetamines and cocaine on her hospital urine screen and for the cocaine metabolite on an oral screen, despite denying using cocaine. Father's own drug screen, taken the same day, was positive for cocaine and marijuana.

[5] A day after receiving the report, while A.V. and infant W.S. were still hospitalized, Kaylie Guy, a DCS assessment family case manager (FCM), went to the family home. She found it lacked running water. Father told her that he had shut off the water due to a plumbing problem. There was no bottled water in the home for Children to drink or for hygiene purposes. The refrigerator did not work, and the pantry held “minimal” food “not sufficient for more than two (2) days.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 78.

[6] The two older girls’ bedroom was so covered in belongings that there was “no walking space[,] clean sleeping space[,] nothing.” Id. at 78. A crib was in pieces against a wall, and Jo.S., the 11-year-old, appeared to be attempting to put it together.

[7] Also, neither Jo.S. nor A.S. had attended school that day. Father stated that Jo.S. was ill and that he did not know why A.S. “didn't get herself up and on the bus.” Id. A.S. was in first grade, autistic, and diagnosed with a learning disability and multiple medical conditions, including a chromosomal defect and “global development disabilities.” Id. at 43.

[8] Jo.S. and A.S. missed school the next two days (September 4 and 5, 2025) as well. Father called the school to report the girls’ absences only on the first of the three days. He later stated that he was “unaware that you have to call [the school] every day.” Id. at 60. A.S.’s consistent attendance was especially important due to her various conditions and the fact that she was already behind other children her age after having been retained in kindergarten for two years.

[9] FCM Guy provided a pack-and-play to Father so that W.S. would have a safe place to sleep upon her discharge from the hospital. Father obtained bottled water for the family shortly after FCM Guy's visit, but the piped water service itself was not restored until days later.

[10] DCS removed Children from Father and both mothers (collectively, Parents) on September 5. At a visit with Children shortly afterward, Father provided Jo.S.’s ADHD medication—Adderall—to FCM Guy. The bottle, dated June 2025, contained loose beads at the bottom and pills of two different colors. After consulting the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist who filled the prescription, DCS learned that some of the contents of the pill bottle were consistent with the Adderall prescription while the rest appeared “counterfeit.” Id. at 83. Father attributed the counterfeit pills to a cascade of other events—the bottle dumping out in a drawer, Jo.S. dropping and stepping on a capsule, A.V. mistaking an Adderall for a heart-worm pill, and houseguests tampering with it. FCM Guy completed a police report and surrendered the medication to law enforcement.

[11] DCS petitioned for a determination that each of the three girls was a CHINS based on neglect, among other things. At the fact-finding hearing, FCM Guy testified to DCS's previous involvement with the family. These incidents included substantiations for: (1) neglect and sexual abuse in 2020, which led to the two oldest children's removal; (2) physical abuse of Jo.S. by L.W. in 2021; and (3) multiple incidents of “inappropriate or physical discipline.” Id. at 82. Father acknowledged the 2020 case and further DCS involvement in 2024.

[12] DCS FCM Brian Jones, who was working with the family at the time of the fact-finding hearing, testified that the family still needed services because of ongoing “[s]ubstance use,” that the children could not safely be returned for that reason, and that “without court interventions this issue would probably not be remedied.” Id. at 68-69. At that time, Father had not completed the substance-abuse assessment that DCS had recommended.

[13] During his testimony, Father admitted that he had used illegal substances. He testified that he last used marijuana—his drug of choice—a few weeks before the hearing. This was during a period when Father knew his conduct was being monitored. Father claimed he was responsible for Jo.S.’s medication and that he had completed a pill count showing “everything was good” before giving the bottle to FCM Guy. Id. at 83. Father also conceded that he and L.W. (Jo.S.’s mother) had “used THC together,” although he did not specify when or where. Id. at 64.

[14] A.V. introduced photographs showing the living conditions in the family's home had improved by the time of the fact-finding hearing. The photographs, taken two days earlier, showed the home had running water, a stocked freezer and pantry, and relatively tidy bedrooms.

[15] The trial court adjudicated Children to be CHINS based on neglect. After a dispositional hearing, the court awarded DCS wardship of Children and ordered Father to complete a substance-abuse assessment, submit to random drug screens, engage in individual counseling and home-based casework, and maintain safe and stable housing with functional utilities and adequate food.

[16] Father appealed but tendered an untimely notice of appeal due to counsel's oversight. This Court granted Father's request for permission to file a belated appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[17] On appeal, Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's CHINS judgment. When reviewing a CHINS determination, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the trial court's decision and reverse only if that decision is clearly erroneous. Id.

[18] The court found Children to be CHINS under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 (2025), which specifies:

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.1

[19] Given the language of this statute and DCS's allegations, a CHINS adjudication under this statute “requires three basic elements: that the parents’ actions or inactions have seriously endangered [Children], that [Children'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).

[20] Father's only cogent argument is that DCS failed to prove Children were seriously endangered. Father focuses on his testimony and that of A.V. suggesting they were sending the older girls to school and meeting all of Children's needs. Much of this testimony conflicted with that offered by DCS caseworkers, so Father's arguments in this regard largely amount to a request to reweigh the evidence that we must reject. See In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253 (standard of review prohibits reweighing of evidence on appeal).

[21] Father also notes that the condition of the family home had improved by the time of the fact-finding hearing. A.V. introduced photographs taken two days before the hearing showing a stocked pantry and freezer and uncluttered floors in portions of Children's bedroom. It is true that “[a] CHINS finding should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290. But remedied conditions are only one factor for a court to consider when making a CHINS determination. See id. (considering the parent's recent remedying of alleged problems, as well as the parent's willingness or ability to care appropriately for the child without court compulsion).

[22] The evidence showed that Children were seriously endangered at the time of removal. The home lacked running water for hygiene and drinking, and there was no bottled water in the home. Newborn W.S. would soon be staying there as well. Father's in-court testimony about the lack of water varied from what he had told FCM Guy. He first reported that he voluntarily turned the water off due to a plumbing problem but testified at the fact-finding hearing that the water was shut off due to his unpaid bill. The record does not reveal the reasons for the nonworking refrigerator or how long it had been that way.

[23] Although A.V. reported having all the items for W.S. that a newborn would need, DCS found no evidence of such supplies in the home after W.S.’s birth. Even a crib had not been assembled, as Father seemingly had left that task to Jo.S. The girls’ bedroom was so cluttered that they had insufficient space to play or sleep. By providing Children with a home that lacked running water, had an inoperable refrigerator, and did not have an appropriate place to sleep or adequate food, Parents endangered Children by failing to provide “necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision.” Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 (2025).

[24] The record contains little evidence to suggest that any improvement in the home conditions would last. Father reported that “we don't really clean up after ourselves” and “we are kind of messy.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 61. In fact, when A.V. and W.S. were hospitalized, Father called L.W.—Jo.S.’s mother—to “help ․ with the house” because of his inability or unwillingness to do that by himself. Id. This request was particularly unusual because L.W. had not seen Jo.S. for nearly a year at that point, according to Father's estimate.

[25] But of even more concern to the trial court was the substance abuse of Father and A.V., Children's primary caretakers. Father attempts to distance himself from A.V.’s drug use that resulted in W.S.’s umbilical cord testing positive for cocaine. Because a CHINS determination focuses on the condition of the child rather than comparative fault between parents, In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010), evidence of household conditions and either parent's substance abuse bears on a child's welfare regardless of whose conduct predominated.

[26] In any case, the evidence showed Father also engaged in illegal drug use. He tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on September 2, 2025, when A.V. was still hospitalized and Father was caring for the other two children. Even after Children's removal, he admittedly engaged in illegal drug use a few weeks before the fact-finding hearing. When asked whether he and L.W. ever “used THC together,” Father answered affirmatively and described marijuana as his drug of choice. Tr. Vol. II, p. 64. A.V. testified to using cocaine at the family home.

[27] FCM Jones focused on Father and A.V.’s ongoing substance abuse in recommending continuing services for the family. He opined that Children could not be returned to Parents for that reason and that the substance abuse would not be remedied “without court interventions.” Id. at 68-69. During the two months between the filing of the CHINS petition and the fact-finding hearing, Father did not complete the recommended substance-abuse assessment.

[28] In addition, shortly after Children's removal, Father provided to FCM Guy a bottle of Jo.S.’s ADHD medication containing some counterfeit pills. Father, who oversaw Jo.S.’s medication, offered no reasonable explanation for the disappearance and replacement of the ADHD pills.

[29] Given this evidence, the trial court did not err in determining that Children were endangered and that the other elements of Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 (2025) were met. Pointing to “failed drug screens, a drug exposed infant, and an admission today in open court that both parents have used in the last few weeks,” the court concluded that “we pretty clearly have some substance abuse issues that need to be addressed before even considering returning the children to the home.” Id. at 97. Ongoing drug use has been held sufficient to endanger a child with significant medical or developmental needs. Matter of D.P., 213 N.E.3d 552, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (affirming a CHINS adjudication involving “untreated methamphetamine use of unknown frequency and duration endangering a special-needs child's safety and well-being”).

[30] A.S.’s “global development disabilities,” learning disability, and autism made her especially reliant on a stable, sober household. Tr. Vol. II, p. 43. A parent who cannot maintain sobriety cannot reliably supply the supervision and care that Children—including a medically fragile newborn and another child with significant special needs—require. The evidence amply established Children's physical or mental conditions are seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of Parents to supply Children with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision, as required by Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 (2025).

[31] The family's history reinforces this conclusion. This was not the first misstep but the latest in a series of DCS involvements dating back to 2020, including a prior removal. Evidence of a family's past involvement with DCS gives the court “the full story” behind a CHINS petition, although that history may not be the sole factual basis for the State's allegations in a CHINS determination. Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1212 (Ind. 2019). And a trial court assessing whether a parent will voluntarily accept services may weigh that parent's habitual patterns of conduct as a predictor of future behavior. See In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (termination of parental rights appeal). On this record, the court reasonably concluded that Children's needs would not be met without its coercive intervention.

[32] The essence of Father's argument is that he loves Children and was doing his best during a challenging time for his family. The trial court could accept that and still find, as it did, that Children were in need of services. The court was not required to wait for those conditions to ripen into injury before intervening. K.B. v. Ind. Dep't. of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Conclusion

[33] Father has not established that the evidence of endangerment was insufficient to prove that Children are CHINS. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   DCS also alleged that Children were CHINS under other related statutes, but the trial court found Children were CHINS only under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 (2025). Father's brief appears to assume that the trial court's CHINS finding rested on all the statutory grounds alleged by DCS. We address only Father's arguments relating to Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 (2025).

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.