IN RE: E.F. and J.F. (Minor Children) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] T.M. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's adjudication of his two children as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Father claims the trial court clearly erred in finding Children to be CHINS because the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to present sufficient evidence to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and M.A. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) have two children: a son, J.F. (born in May 2021), and a daughter, E.F. (born in March 2022) (collectively, “Children”).¹

[3] Children were first adjudicated CHINS in October 2022. Children were living with Mother when Mother's then-partner committed acts of domestic violence against her. When Children were initially removed from Mother's care, they were “filthy” and infant E.F. was “terribly underweight.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 114. Children were not receiving adequate medical care. Father was living elsewhere and admitted he needed help with housing and parenting skills. Children were placed with their paternal great-grandmother (“Grandmother”). About a year later, the CHINS case closed with Children placed in Father's custody.

[4] Thereafter, Mother married C.A. (“Stepfather”) and two children were born of the marriage: B.A. and F.A. (collectively, “half-siblings”).² F.A. was born in January 2025 with significant medical needs, spent two months in the hospital, and went home with a feeding tube and supplemental oxygen.

[5] In spring 2025, Father and Children (now three and four years old) were living with Mother, Stepfather, and half-siblings in an apartment in Richmond. DCS opened an assessment of the family after infant F.A. missed follow-up medical appointments and lost weight following discharge. Mother worked with DCS to get F.A. medical care, and DCS planned to close the assessment. However, a DCS caseworker made an unannounced visit to the apartment in May. The home was in disarray. Children were “bouncing off the walls” and E.F. was cracking eggs on the floor. Id. at 114. F.A. was unattended in a bedroom, medical equipment was strewn about, Mother had lost F.A.’s feeding log, and Mother fed F.A. old formula. As to Children, the assessment caseworker was concerned about the level of supervision in the home. Mother, Father, and Stepfather agreed to participate in family preservation services. Father told DCS he planned to move out of the home with Children.

[6] In June, DCS made another unannounced visit to the apartment and found all four children with an inappropriate caregiver. Father, Mother, and Stepfather were not home. The apartment was in disarray, and F.A. was alone in a bedroom while the babysitter was playing video games.

[7] DCS initially filed paperwork requesting approval of a program of informal adjustment (“IA”) as to Mother, Stepfather, and half-siblings. DCS did not include Father and Children because they were planning to move. The trial court did not approve the IA because the allegations about lack of medical care resembled those in the prior CHINS case involving Mother and Children.

[8] In early July, DCS filed petitions alleging half-siblings were CHINS. When DCS came to remove them, the apartment was cluttered with moldy food and trash throughout. F.A. was lying alone on the bedroom floor surrounded by trash, his medical equipment was very dirty, and he did not look healthy. Mother and Stepfather had not been following the correct feeding schedule or giving F.A. supplemental oxygen. A police officer in attendance observed what he believed was a potent form of THC and a smoking device near where Stepfather was sitting. Father and Children were not in the home, having apparently moved in with Father's relatives.

[9] Thereafter, Mother filed a pro se petition in paternity court to modify custody of Children. Around July 30, Parents appeared for a hearing and informed the paternity court they had agreed to joint legal custody of Children, for Mother to have physical custody, and for Father to have parenting time “when he is off work as Mother and Father shall mutually agree.” Ex. Vol. 1 at 18. During the hearing, neither parent disclosed to the paternity court that half-siblings had been removed from Mother's home and were subject to CHINS cases. The paternity court granted physical custody of Children to Mother, and Father placed Children in Mother's care.

[10] On learning of the order, DCS opened an assessment of Children. During the investigation, DCS learned Father was living in a shed behind his mother's house. DCS filed verified petitions alleging Children were CHINS on August 4 because Father was suffering from housing instability; Mother was subject to an open out-of-home CHINS case involving half-siblings; there was no evidence the conditions in Mother's home had improved; and physical custody had changed from Father to Mother. After a combined initial and detention hearing, the trial court authorized Children's detention and granted temporary wardship to DCS. Children were placed with Grandmother. DCS referred Father to fatherhood engagement services and supervised visitation.

[11] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on October 1. At the time, Father was working second shift at a food manufacturing and packaging facility as a temporary worker earning $16.50 per hour, with opportunity to become a permanent employee at a higher hourly wage. Since Children's removal, Father had moved to New Castle and was living with two adults and their two daughters in a three-bedroom mobile home. Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Grace Severance assessed the home and determined it was clean, had working utilities, and presented no safety concerns. However, the FCM had not yet completed background checks on the adult roommates, and she was concerned it was an unstable living situation, inasmuch as Father had not shown he was on the lease. With respect to the custody change and placement of Children in Mother's care, Father testified that he agreed to it because he was working a lot of hours and he “was thinking that it was a good idea for [Mother] to see her kids more[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 243. He explained he “was not thinking about” the fact Mother's other children had been removed from her care. Id.

[12] Grandmother testified that when Children arrived at her home, they were “difficult to handle” because they were “very, very undisciplined” and engaged in food-seeking behaviors, such as “climb[ing] up on the counters to access food.” Id. at 72–73. Both Children showed signs of developmental delays, particularly with speech. Although Parents were aware J.F. might be autistic, neither parent had taken him for an evaluation. Two evaluations were scheduled when J.F. was in Father's care, but Father took him to neither. (A third was scheduled for the date DCS detained Children.) While with Grandmother, J.F. was evaluated and diagnosed with autism. Grandmother was taking J.F. to a speech therapist weekly. Through preschool, each child received an Individualized Education Plan to address speech delays, and they began receiving special education services twice per week to work on classroom procedures and routines. Grandmother believed Children had responded to the consistency and routine in her home. Both Children were improving, although J.F. had shown less progress.

[13] Grandmother also supervised Father's twice-weekly visits with Children. Father attended all but one visit. According to Grandmother, Father did not always show initiative to address Children's needs. She described him as “doing better” but “just not there yet.” Id. at 76. Melissa Krepp, Father's fatherhood engagement service provider, testified about her role in helping Father with budgeting, obtaining housing, creating a childcare plan, and developing parenting skills, including implementing discipline and routine. Krepp testified that because J.F. is on the autism spectrum, he requires more care and redirection. J.F. has been known to flee the home, does not understand danger, is difficult to redirect, and can be very physical. Based on her observations, Krepp had concerns about Father failing to adequately supervise Children. She was also concerned about Father's housing stability and his plan to rely on his roommates for childcare outside of school hours when he is working.

[14] At the end of the hearing, Father moved the trial court to release Children to his care. The trial court denied the motion. On October 15, the trial court entered its written order adjudicating Children CHINS. After a dispositional hearing, the trial court ordered Father, over his objection, to complete a parenting assessment and engage in father engagement services, among other requirements.

The CHINS adjudication is not clearly erroneous.

[15] In a CHINS proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012); see Ind. Code §§ 31-34-1-1 to -11 (describing instances under which a child is a CHINS); I.C. § 31-34-12-3 (1997) (preponderance standard). A CHINS adjudication centers on the needs and condition of the child. In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). When reviewing a CHINS adjudication for sufficient evidence, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility but consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's decision. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–78 (Ind. 2017). “We reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous.” K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253.

[16] When the trial court, as here, enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte, we review issues covered by the findings with a “two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). This Court reviews issues not covered by the findings under the general judgment standard, meaning the Court will affirm the judgment if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id. Findings not challenged on appeal must be taken as true. See Matter of A.M.J., 228 N.E.3d 1132, 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (“When, as in this case, the factual findings are unchallenged, we accept those findings as true.”).

[17] Here, DCS alleged Children were CHINS under the general neglect statute, which requires DCS to prove:

(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 ․ 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.

I.C. § 31-34-1-1 (2019). “The statute contains three basic elements: (1) the parent's actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child; (2) the child's needs are unmet; and (3) those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.” N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475 (citing S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287).

[18] The trial court's unchallenged findings show Father endangered Children by failing to provide them with necessary care and supervision while they were in his custody. Although J.F. displayed signs of autism and both Children had delayed speech, Father did not obtain evaluations and follow-up care to address these issues. Children began receiving therapeutic interventions to address these unmet needs only after they were removed from Father's care. Evidence also shows Children need a particularly high level of supervision, structure, and routine due to their age, behaviors, and J.F.’s autism diagnosis. Yet Children were not receiving the necessary supervision while in Father's custody. After DCS detained them, Children were very difficult to manage and exhibited significant behavior issues. For example, they climbed on counters to get food, “but once they realized that they could have ․ food at a regular scheduled time, ․ they quit doing that.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 73. Although Father had shown improvement in his parenting skills by the time of the factfinding hearing, both Grandmother and Krepp testified he was not providing the high level of supervision and redirection Children needed. Finally, Father demonstrated a serious lack of judgment by agreeing to a change in custody and placing Children in Mother's care after half-siblings’ removal. And Father did not disclose to the paternity court the CHINS adjudication involving half-siblings, which left the court without knowledge of those circumstances when it approved the custody change.

[19] Still, Father argues that by the time of the factfinding hearing, FCM Severance no longer had concerns about the “sleeping arrangements, food, cleanliness, clothing, education, or medical care” of Children because these needs are being met and services are in place. Appellant's Br. at 16. He therefore argues the trial court erred in concluding the court's coercive intervention was necessary. Father's argument ignores FCM Severance's testimony that Children had unmet needs prior to their detention, including for evaluations and therapeutic services to address developmental delays. And although FCM Severance had inspected Father's current home and found it suitable, both FCM Severance and Krepp expressed concern about the stability of Father's housing situation moving forward. Father's argument is essentially a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577–78.

[20] The trial court's unchallenged findings support its conclusion that Father endangered Children by failing to provide them with necessary care and supervision, Children had unmet needs at the time they were detained, and those needs were unlikely to be met without the State's intervention.

Conclusion

[21] The trial court's CHINS determination is not clearly erroneous.

[22] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother is not a party to this appeal.

2.   Half-siblings are not subjects of this appeal.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford J., and Pyle, J., concur.