IN RE: B.R.M. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] S.M. (“Father”) appeals the Fountain Circuit Court's order adjudicating his daughter B.R.M. (“Child”) to be a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Father presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court's adjudication of Child as a CHINS is clearly erroneous.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Child was born in 2011, and she was adjudicated to be a CHINS in 2018 due to her biological mother's drug abuse and severe neglect of Child. DCS placed Child with her biological father. In 2020, DCS opened another CHINS case due to allegations that Child's biological father was physically abusing Child and sexually abusing Child's sister. During the ensuing investigation, Child stated that her biological father had sexually abused her. Child was removed from her biological father's care and placed in foster care with Father. In 2024, Father adopted Child.

[4] Beginning in January 2025, DCS received “multiple reports alleging [Father] as a perpetrator of sexual abuse with minors.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 111. Among those reports was an allegation that Father was sexually abusing a sixteen-year-old girl named G.Y. Father admitted that G.Y. frequently spent the night in his bedroom, on his bed, while he slept on the floor. Father also admitted that he and G.Y. watched movies together in his bedroom while Child was in another room. But G.Y. did not disclose any sexual abuse by Father, and DCS was not able to substantiate the allegations. Nonetheless, Father “agreed to the recommendations offered by [a family case manager that he] establish appropriate boundaries with G.Y., such as not allowing G.Y. to go into his bedroom, sleep in his bedroom, or have one-on-one encounters.” Id.

[5] In September 2025, DCS received a report that Father had sexually abused twelve-year-old V.B., who was Child's friend. V.B. disclosed that Father had raped her, and DCS found corroborating evidence in Father's home. Accordingly, that report was substantiated by DCS. That fall, DCS “received multiple other assessments from other young [girls] in the community[, aged twelve to sixteen,] who alleged that there had been some inappropriate contact” with Father. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 12.

[6] In October, DCS received a report that Father had sexually abused Child and that Child was the victim of neglect. Child did not disclose sexual abuse by Father. But Child was having serious problems in school, and she was self-harming. Child remained in Father's care.

[7] On January 6, 2026, DCS received a report that Child was the victim of neglect due to her “cutting herself and suicide ideation.” Id. at 131. Child told the family case manager that she was being bullied at school and that she was self-harming as a form of stress relief. The family case manager “observed old cuts on her stomach, healed cuts on her arms, and new cuts on her legs.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 112. Father reported that he had taken Child to Hendrick's Behavioral Hospital over the holidays “for an acute stay due to her self-harming.” Id. at 113. Father reported that Child's therapist was out of the country, and he “declined services” offered by the family case manager. Id. Father stated that Hendricks had given him a “safety plan,” but he would not share it with the FCM, and he refused to sign a release of information. Id. During a home visit, Father did not allow the FCM into any part of the house other than the living room. But the FCM was able to see that G.Y. was in the kitchen.

[8] On January 12, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS, and on January 13, DCS removed Child from Father's care “[d]ue to all the evidence that was gathered during the assessments regarding [Father], his substantiation for sexual abuse of a peer in the home, [Child's] history, and the effect this was having on her mentally.” Id. at 113.

[9] DCS placed Child at Hendricks Behavioral Health until the end of January, when she was moved to Scholer Home for emergency shelter care. Child continued to self-harm, and DCS sent Child to Hendricks for another acute stay at the end of February. From Hendricks, Child went to Safe Passages, which offered a diagnostic and evaluation program that would last four to six weeks.

[10] Following a hearing over three days in February and March, the trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Father contends that the trial court's CHINS adjudication is clearly erroneous. Our standard of review is well settled:

A CHINS proceeding is a civil action; thus, “the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Egly v. Blackford County Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992). We consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. Id.

In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012).

[12] DCS alleged that Child was a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 (2025), which 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.

[13] Our Supreme Court has interpreted that statute to require “three basic elements: that the parent's actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child, that the child'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). “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). And, when determining whether a child is a CHINS under Section 31-34-1-1, the juvenile court “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.

[14] On appeal, Father contends that

DCS presented no evidence that [he] failed, was unwilling or unable to provide for all of [Child's] needs. DCS's assertion rests solely upon one substantiated report of abuse against [Father], which has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by clear and convincing evidence in this record, and has resulted in no stated charges – either civil or criminal - against him.

Appellant's Br. at 16-17. Father maintains that, “at the time of the fact-finding, [Child] continued to receive services from DCS, as she had all along,” and he had “continued to assist in making sure those services would occur.” Id. at 14. Thus, he argues that “[t]here was no circumstance that would necessitate the intervention of the court.” Id.

[15] However, Father does not challenge any of the trial court's findings. “We accept unchallenged findings as true.” Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). The trial court found in part as follows:

74. The Court finds that [Father] has refused to take any accountability for his actions in the present matter, and despite his testimony regarding the trauma classes he has taken as a foster parent so he could be a therapeutic placement, he shows a clear lack of understanding as to how his actions have directly affected [Child]. The Court finds [Father's] excuses for as to why G.Y. continued to be in [the] home both not credible and very concerning.

75. Despite initial allegations regarding inappropriate conduct with G.Y., [Father] continued to allow the minor into his home, along with other minors, which shows either a brazen disregard, or a staggering lack of awareness of the circumstances, either of which demonstrate a failure on his part to provide the appropriate care and supervision for [Child].

* * *

78. The Court finds that [Father] has failed to provide [Child] with a safe home, a home that is safe for her mentally and emotionally.

79. [Child] has been victimized and re-victimized. Her continued exposure to sexual abuse in the home perpetuates and compounds her trauma, resulting in her mental and physical condition being seriously impaired and seriously endangered by the neglect of [Father].

* * *

81. While [Child] received services while in [Father's] care from Life Builders and Dr. Jackson, it is evident that these services are not sufficient to meet the needs of [Child]. This is especially true in light of her continued exposure to sexual abuse while residing in the home of [Father].

82. DCS has provided services to [Child]. She has received care through acute stays, placement at Scholer Home, individual therapy, and placement for a diagnostic and evaluation.

83. DCS is unable to provide any services to [Child] safely in the home as any benefit would be counteracted by remaining in a home with the risk of exposure to sexual abuse, a main trigger for [Child].

84. [Father] has not participated in services and continues to deny the allegations that resulted in DCS involvement.

85. Coercive intervention of the Court is necessary to ensure that services are available, offered, and completed.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 118-19.

[16] In addition, Susan Snedeker, the DCS FCM since January 2026, testified that it was not safe, “at all,” for Child to return to Father's care. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 149-50. She testified further that, “[r]ight now [Child] is not stable. We need to get her stabilized and I think that we need to have a better understanding of [Father] and his involvement in the substantiated sexual abuse and how best to address those concerns as well.” Id. at 150. Snedeker testified that she believed that the trial court needed to be involved to ensure that Child received the care she needs.

[17] Thus, DCS presented ample evidence to support the court's findings, and the findings are sufficient to support the adjudication of Child as a CHINS. Father's argument amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

[18] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.