IN RE: P.T. and S.T. (Minor Children) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] D.D. (Father) appeals the trial court's dispositional decree entered after the adjudication of P.T. and S.T. (collectively, Children) as Children in Need of Services (CHINS). Father raises three issues for our review which we restate as: 1) whether the predispositional report met statutory requirements; 2) whether the dispositional decree contained sufficient findings; and 3) whether the findings support Father's dispositional orders. Notably, Father does not challenge the court's adjudication of Children as CHINS. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and A.T. (Mother) (collectively, Parents) are the biological parents of P.T., born in June 2010, and S.T., born in December 2011.¹ Children primarily resided with Mother and her boyfriend in Indiana, while Father lived in Arizona. In January 2025, Children were visiting Father in Arizona for the Christmas break.

[3] That month, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report that Children witnessed domestic violence between Mother and her boyfriend. The report also contained allegations that Mother neglected Children's mental health needs and her home was not in livable condition. DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Elizabeth Spaid learned that the Arizona Department of Child Safety had received a report regarding Father's alleged drug use. During an interview with DCS, Mother stated that P.T. was hospitalized in Arizona after she expressed suicidal ideations. She also informed DCS that Children had been withdrawn from school.

[4] Children returned to Indiana and were interviewed by DCS. They confirmed the allegations regarding domestic violence and the conditions of Mother's home. Children also “disclosed concerns for substance use by both parents.” Tr. Vol. I p. 178.

[5] On March 3, DCS filed a petition alleging Children to be CHINS. Therein, DCS alleged that Children were victims of educational neglect, they were deprived of a safe and stable home, and their mental health needs were not being met. At a hearing on May 29, the trial court placed Children in foster care. At the same hearing, Father admitted Children were CHINS because of their exposure to domestic violence, the failure to provide for Children's mental health needs, and the poor conditions of the home. After their placement in foster care, Children began attending school and receiving mental health services.

[6] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on DCS's CHINS petition on August 18 and September 10. In addition to the facts outlined above, DCS presented evidence that Children both experienced suicidal ideations and harmed themselves while they were in Mother's care. The court adjudicated Children as CHINS.

[7] A dispositional hearing was set for October. At the hearing, Father objected to DCS's predispositional report on grounds that the agency failed to interview Father and provide the report within forty-eight hours of the hearing. The court then continued the hearing to allow DCS additional time to amend the report. In preparing an amended predispositional report, FCM Andie Trowbridge interviewed Father for “[s]even minutes.” Id. at 196. She discussed the recommendations in her report and the logistics of Father completing a parenting assessment and submitting to drug screens while in Arizona. Father indicated that he had no questions or concerns regarding her recommendations.

[8] On October 27, the trial court held a dispositional hearing for Parents. DCS timely submitted its predispositional report, which included FCM Trowbridge's findings and recommendations. FCM Trowbridge recommended that Father attend supervised virtual visitation with Children, submit to random drug screens, complete a parenting assessment, follow all recommendations, and pay child support. She also recommended that DCS be granted wardship of Children so they could remain in foster care. Father testified and objected to most of DCS's recommended services but agreed to submit to random drug screens and to complete a parenting assessment.

[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court “reserve[d] th[e] issue” of child support and adopted FCM Trowbridge's remaining recommendations. Id. at 220. Father was ordered to maintain weekly contact with DCS, submit to home visits, sign releases for information, maintain suitable housing and income, refrain from alcohol and illegal substances, complete a parenting assessment, submit to random drug screens within one hour of request, meet all medical and mental health needs of Children, attend visitation, and follow all recommendations. In its written order issued on November 21, the trial court found Parents’ participation necessary to “provide [Children] a safe and stable home free from all forms of abuse and neglect with a safe and sober caregiver who is willing and able to provide for [Children's] needs.” App. Vol. II p. 26. Father now appeals. In July 2026, after this appeal ensued, the trial court found Father had been compliant with Children's case plan and placed Children with him in Arizona.²

Discussion and Decision

I. Predispositional Report

[10] Father argues that the dispositional decree must be vacated because the underlying predispositional report did not satisfy “the statutory inquiry required by [Indiana Code sections] 31-34-18-1, 31-34-18-2, and 31-34-18-4.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. In every CHINS case, DCS is required to prepare a predispositional report identifying a child's needs for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement and any related recommendations. Ind. Code § 31-34-18-1 (2008). In addition, Indiana Code section 31-34-18-2 requires DCS to consider “the necessity, nature, and extent of the participation by a parent, guardian, or custodian in a program of care, treatment, or rehabilitation for the child.” (emphasis added). Where it is consistent with a child's safety and best interests, DCS shall recommend care and placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting that imposes the least restraint on family freedom and provides a reasonable opportunity for parental participation. Ind. Code § 31-34-18-4 (1997).

[11] Father's only substantive contention with the predispositional report is that DCS failed to conduct a “Father-specific investigation” before recommending placement in foster care instead of with Father. Appellant's Br. p. 13. But the spirit of the predispositional statutes that Father contends were violated indicates that, before disposition, DCS should consider what is needed for the child in a CHINS case.

[12] Here, when the court adjudicated Children CHINS on September 10, 2025, it found that Children were “self-harming, they ha[d] suicidal ideations, [and] they [were] not safe[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 151. The predispositional report detailed that Children observed domestic violence between Mother and her boyfriend, and Children's mental health struggles. Additionally, DCS made specific recommendations for Children and Parents to ensure Children's mental health needs were met and that Parents provided a safe and stable home. Father does not challenge the court's findings about Children's conditions, and he has not demonstrated that DCS failed to consider what Children needed to address those conditions during the predispositional period. As such, we cannot conclude that DCS's predispositional report fell short of the statutory requirements contained in Indiana Code sections 31-34-18-1, -2, or -4.

II. Dispositional Decree

[13] Father next argues the trial court's dispositional decree is contrary to law because it does not include the requisite statutory findings. Father first contends the court's findings were insufficient to support its order continuing Children's placement in foster care and granting him supervised visitation. As we noted above, the dispositional placement order has since been modified, and Children were placed in Father's care in July 2026. Father's challenges regarding placement and supervised visitation are rendered moot by the court placing Children with him in July 2026. See In re M.M., 118 N.E.3d 70, 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding parent's challenge to terms of dispositional decree rendered moot when terms are no longer in effect). We thus turn to Father's challenges to the remaining dispositional findings.

[14] After a child is adjudicated a CHINS, the trial court conducts a dispositional hearing to consider alternatives for the child's care, treatment, placement, or rehabilitation; the participation of the parent; and the financial responsibility for the services provided. Ind. Code § 31-34-19-1 (2015). The court must then issue a dispositional decree that includes written findings and conclusions concerning, among other things, the child's needs for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement; the need for participation by the parent in the plan of care for the child; family services offered to the parent; and the reasons for the disposition. Ind. Code § 31-34-19-10(a) (2015).³ The court may incorporate a finding or conclusion from the predispositional report in its decree. Id. at (b).

[15] A trial court “has broad discretion in determining what programs and services in which a parent is required to participate, [but] the requirements must relate to some behavior or circumstances that was revealed by the evidence.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1258 (Ind. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). “Thus, we review a trial court's order of services and conditions in a CHINS case for [an] abuse of discretion.” In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744, 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (citation omitted), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

A. Sufficiency of Findings

[16] Father contends the trial court erred by issuing a “boilerplate participation order” that is not supported by factual findings specific to the requirements imposed on Father. Appellant's Br. p. 17. We disagree. The dispositional order states:

The children having been found to be [CHINS, and] the Court, after reviewing the Predispositional Report(s) and hearing statements and evidence presented to the Court regarding the disposition of this cause, finds:

The needs of the children for care, treatment, or rehabilitation are: a safe and stable home free from all forms of abuse or neglect with safe and sober caregivers who are fit and willing to provide for the children's needs.

Participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the plan for the children is necessary to: provide a safe and stable home free from all forms of abuse and neglect with a safe and sober caregiver who is willing and able to provide for the children's needs.

Based on the information presented in the Predispositional Report(s) and provided at the hearing, the Court makes the following dispositional orders ․

App. Vol. II p. 26 (formatting altered).

[17] The court's language indicates that it incorporated information from the predispositional report in its findings. See In re W.H., 254 N.E.3d 549, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (holding substantially similar findings were sufficient because they incorporated information from a predispositional report). Relying on this information, which we summarized in ¶12 supra, the trial court found Parents’ participation necessary and ordered services for Father. Again, Father contends the court needed to make “Father-specific findings[,]” but we read no such requirement in Indiana Code section 31-34-19-10. Appellant's Br. p. 15. The court's findings sufficiently demonstrated that services for both Parents were necessary to ensure the needs of Children were met, which satisfies Indiana Code section 31-34-19-10.

B. Dispositional Orders

[18] Father also contends the dispositional orders imposed on him were not supported by the evidence. As we stated above, Father was ordered to maintain weekly contact with DCS, submit to home visits, sign releases for information, maintain suitable housing and income, refrain from alcohol and illegal substances, complete a parenting assessment, submit to random drug screens within one hour of request, meet all medical and mental health needs of Children, attend supervised visitation, and follow all recommendations.

[19] Father's requirement to meet Children's medical and mental health needs is directly supported by evidence that P.T. and S.T. both harmed themselves and experienced suicidal ideations. Additionally, P.T. was hospitalized while she was visiting Father in Arizona. Further, DCS's routine requirements—including Father maintaining suitable housing and an income, maintaining contact with DCS, permitting home visits, and signing releases—are “routine but appropriate to include” as part of Children's program of care because they were adjudicated CHINS under the general neglect statute. Matter of V.K., 279 N.E.3d 1029, 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026) (citing Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 (2019)).⁴

[20] The trial court's dispositional decree contains sufficient factual findings, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing dispositional requirements on Father. We affirm.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother does not participate in this appeal.

2.   We take judicial notice of the trial court's order placing Children with Father, accessed through our Odyssey Case Management System, pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 201.

3.   Indiana Code section 31-34-19-10(a)(1) was amended effective March 5, 2026, to include any specific factors used to determine the child's best interests. But this amendment does not apply here as the dispositional decree was entered prior to the amendment.

4.   DCS contends Father waived any challenge regarding the parenting assessment and drug screen requirements. We agree. Father affirmatively waived his challenge to these requirements when he agreed to them on cross-examination. See Matter of V.K., 279 N.E.3d 1029, 1036-37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026) (holding parent waived her challenge to dispositional requirements by failing to challenge any recommendations at the dispositional hearing). Still, Father appears to challenge the addition of a “one-hour compliance deadline” to the drug screen requirement. But Father has failed to provide any argument that this deadline goes against the facts and circumstances before the court and, as such, has not shown the court abused its broad discretion as to service requirements.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.