IN RE: F.R. (Minor Child); A Child in Need of Services Z.M. (Father) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Z.M. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order adjudicating his son, F.R. (“F.R.”), to be a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”).¹ Father specifically argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication. Concluding that the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) presented sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication and that the trial court's finding that F.R. is a CHINS is not clearly erroneous, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication.

Facts

[3] The evidence most favorable to the CHINS adjudication reveals that Father and Mother (collectively, “Parents”) are the parents of F.R., who was born in April 2025. DCS became involved with Parents after receiving a report that F.R. was a drug-exposed infant. The assessment family case manager (“the assessment FCM”) reviewed the medical records from F.R.’s birth, which confirmed that F.R. had been born drug-exposed and that Mother had used illegal substances during the pregnancy. Mother's drug screen was positive for amphetamines and THC, and F.R.’s cord blood tested positive for cannabinoids. The assessment FCM also learned that both parents had histories of substance use and “domestic battery.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19).

[4] F.R. was still hospitalized when the assessment began. After his discharge, Mother and F.R. went to the maternal grandmother's home. Later, Mother and Father lived together with F.R. in another residence.

[5] During the assessment, Mother appeared “very scared” of Father, disclosed prior domestic incidents, and reported that Father “gets aggressive with her.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 23). Mother also told the assessment FCM that her drug screen would be positive for THC. Based on concerns regarding substance use and domestic violence, DCS determined that F.R. should be removed from Parents’ care.

[6] On May 9, 2025, the trial court issued a writ, directing law enforcement officers to take F.R. into custody. Officer Merritt Lamm of the Fort Wayne Police Department (“Officer Lamm”) assisted DCS with the removal. When the assessment FCM arrived at Parents’ home and informed Mother that DCS had court-ordered authority to remove F.R., Mother, who was holding the child at the time, slammed the door and locked the deadbolt. Officer Lamm then heard doors opening and closing and what sounded like items being moved inside the home.

[7] After Officer Lamm had repeatedly knocked and had identified himself, Father opened the door. Father initially told Officer Lamm and the assessment FCM that he would find Mother and F.R., but he later claimed that he did not know where they were. Officer Lamm then searched the home and saw several bongs and other drug paraphernalia in plain view in a bedroom closet. He also detected in the home a “very strong odor commonly associated with marijuana[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10).

[8] At first, Officer Lamm was unable to locate Mother and F.R., but he eventually found them hiding in the attic. In the officer's opinion, it was “extraordinarily unlikely” that Mother had entered the attic without assistance, particularly because Father had indicated that Mother was no longer in the house, having told the officer that the home did not have an attic and that there was nowhere else in the home where Mother could hide. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 13). DCS removed F.R. from Parents’ home, based on substance-abuse concerns, and placed the child in foster care.

[9] DCS’ investigation into the instant CHINS matter revealed that Parents—who have children from other relationships—had prior DCS involvement related to substantiated allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse. During Father's prior CHINS case from 2020, he was diagnosed with methamphetamine use disorder in December 2022, and he later tested positive for methamphetamine in April 2023. Father's prior CHINS case ended with reunification of his child with that child's mother.

[10] Mother had substantiated DCS history from 2016, resulting in her older child being adjudicated a CHINS in October of that year. The CHINS case ended in August 2018 with reunification.

[11] On May 13, 2025, in the instant CHINS case involving F.R., the trial court held a preliminary inquiry hearing, found probable cause that F.R. was a CHINS, and authorized DCS to file a petition. DCS filed the petition that same day under Indiana Code §§ 31-34-1-1 (neglect) and 31-34-1-10 (child born with controlled substance in the body), alleging, in relevant part, that F.R. had tested positive for THC at birth, and that Parents had abused substances, had unstable housing, and had a history of domestic violence affecting their ability to care for and supervise F.R.

[12] Also on May 13, 2025, the trial court held a combined initial and detention hearing, entered Parents’ denials of the allegations, and authorized DCS to file an amended petition. The court: (1) ordered Parents to participate in provisional services, including drug screens; (2) ordered F.R. to remain in foster care; and (3) directed Parents to participate in dependency mediation.

[13] On June 5, 2025, Parents engaged in mediation, and the mediator filed her report that same day. In that report, Mother admitted to several amended CHINS allegations. Father admitted, among other things, that Mother was F.R.’s mother; that he was F.R.’s alleged father;² that he had a criminal history that included battery, auto theft, and theft of a firearm; and that he had a prior substantiated DCS history related to domestic violence. Neither parent objected to the adjudication of CHINS, and both parents waived the sixty (60) day deadline for a factfinding hearing.

[14] On June 12, 2025, the court held an additional initial hearing and ordered Parents to cooperate with DCS. On June 30, DCS filed an amended CHINS petition under Indiana Code §§ 31-34-1-1 and 31-34-1-10.

[15] On July 1, 2025, Mother filed for a protective order against Father, alleging that Father had made physical threats against her and that he had stalked and harassed her. The trial court issued an ex parte order for protection against Father and in favor of Mother that same day. Two days later, however, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the protective order and included with it a voluntary relinquishment of parental rights form. Mother did not appear at the hearing held on the motion. On August 20, 2025, the trial court terminated the protective order.

[16] The trial court held the CHINS factfinding hearing on September 8, 2025. The trial court heard the facts as set forth above.

[17] F.R.’s foster mother (“Foster Mother”) testified at the hearing and told the trial court that Mother and Foster Mother were acquainted, as Mother's older child had been placed with Foster Mother for two years. Foster Mother also testified to Father's controlling behavior. Foster Mother stated that Mother had told her that Father was “constantly in [Mother's] head[;]” that Father “continually gets into [Mother's] email [and] changes her passwords[;]” and that when Mother “stayed at a friend's home to get away” from Father, Father would “come there” and “go[ ] through [Mother]’s stuff[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 30, 31).

[18] The DCS family case manager supervisor (“the FCMS”) testified that she was aware that Parents had prior DCS CHINS cases, prior criminal histories, and prior histories of domestic violence. The FCMS told the trial court that DCS was concerned that Father was still actively using illegal substances—based on the drug paraphernalia found in Father's home when F.R. was removed from his care—and that Father had refused to submit to drug screens.

[19] The FCMS further testified that Father needed the coercive intervention of the court to ensure that Father could care for F.R. Further, she told the trial court that based upon Father's prior CHINS case, Father had a “history show[ing]” that he “does not participate in services and benefit from those services[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 42). The FCMS also testified to DCS’ concerns with Father's aggression when communicating with DCS, and to Father's “history and past patterns of domestic violence with his prior significant other” and with Mother. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44).

[20] The assessment FCM also testified, telling the trial court that Father had refused to participate in drug screening and a home visit and that Father was adamant that he would only participate in a safety plan and a safe sleep acknowledgment for F.R. The assessment FCM further testified that Father had sent her a cease-and-desist letter, requesting: (1) a monetary settlement, (2) the dismissal of the CHINS case, (3) F.R.’s return to Father's care, and (4) the firing of the assessment FCM.

[21] On September 16, 2025, the trial court entered its order adjudicating F.R. to be a CHINS under INDIANA CODE §§ 31-34-1-1 and 31-34-1-10. The trial court first found that Mother and Father had admitted to some of the allegations that had been outlined in the dependency mediation report and had denied others. The trial court then made the following additional findings:

1. The Court finds that the parties have a history of substance use and domestic violence with one another, as well as Father with another individual.

2. The Court finds that the child was born drug exposed, as well as Mother tested positive at the birth of the child.

3. Mother has made attempts to get away from [Father], however, she has felt compelled to reside with him due to threats to herself and others. Mother has attempted to obtain services and a protective order; however, the Court finds that Father has prevented her from doing so by controlling her phone and email.

4. Father has a prior CHINS proceeding in which he struggled with substance use. In these instant proceedings, Father's home smelled of marijuana, as well as drug paraphernalia was located in the home that he shared with Mother and the child. He has also previously admitted to consuming alcohol daily.

5. The coercive intervention of the Court is required to provide services to the parents to assist them with obtaining sobriety and safety from domestic violence. Father has previously failed to complete similar services in a prior CHINS proceeding that resulted in that Mother being granted custody of the child.

6. The child requires safety and protection that he was not receiving while in the care of his parents. At the time of removal neither parent was able to provide a home free from violence and substance use.

(App. Vol. 2 at 44).

[22] The court held its dispositional hearing on September 30, 2025. Both parents were present for the hearing, but neither testified. The trial court issued its written dispositional order on October 6, 2025, directing Parents to participate in and complete DCS-recommended services and programs—including, relevant to Father, a diagnostic assessment, a drug and alcohol assessment, homebased case work, random drug screens, a batterer's intervention program, and visitation with F.R.

[23] Father now appeals.

Decision

[24] Father argues that the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating F.R. to be a CHINS. He specifically contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1.³ We disagree.

[25] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action. Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Therefore, DCS had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that F.R. was a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. See id. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Instead, we consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this evidence. In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.

[26] A CHINS adjudication focuses on the child's condition rather than the parent's culpability. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to provide proper services for the benefit of the child, not to punish the parent. Id. at 106. A CHINS adjudication in no way challenges the general competency of a parent to continue his relationship with his child. Id. at 105.

[27] Here, the trial court entered sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon. “As to the issues covered by the findings, we apply the 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), reh'g denied. We review the remaining issues under the general judgment standard, which provides that a judgment “will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. (cleaned up). Under the general judgment standard of review, the reviewing court “may look both to other findings and beyond the findings to the evidence of record to determine if the result is against the facts and circumstances before the court.” C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Further, we accept unchallenged findings as true. In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744, 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[28] Lastly, we note that, as a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “This deference recognizes a trial court's unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court[ ] only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Id.

[29] Here, the trial court adjudicated F.R. to be a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1, which provides that a child is a CHINS 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 ․ to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision:

(A) when the parent ․ is financially able to do so; or

(B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent ․ 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.

The Indiana Supreme Court has synthesized this statutory language, explaining that a CHINS adjudication requires proof of “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.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.

[30] Father specifically argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that F.R. is seriously impaired or endangered or that F.R. needs care and treatment that is unlikely to be provided by Father without coercive intervention of the court. See Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1(2). Father contends that the evidence does not support the trial court's findings and conclusions but does not challenge any particular finding. Instead, Father argues that the “record lacks substantial evidence” of any “ongoing substance use” on his part or “ongoing domestic violence issues that would indicate at the time of the [CHINS factfinding] hearing [that F.R.]’s physical or mental health was endangered or impaired[,]” or that F.R. was in need of care or treatment he was not receiving or was unlikely to receive. (Father's Br. 9, 10). We disagree and conclude that DCS presented sufficient evidence to establish that F.R. was endangered and had unmet needs, and that without court intervention, F.R. would not receive necessary care and supervision.

[31] First, we note that evidence regarding a parent's prior neglect of a child is expressly permitted in CHINS proceedings. See I.C. § 31-34-12-5. Our Supreme Court has also explicitly recognized that “DCS must necessarily rely on the past actions of parents to give a trial court the full story of why a CHINS petition was filed in the first place.” Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1212 (Ind. 2019).

[32] Here, DCS presented evidence that its concerns regarding Father's drug use first arose during his prior 2020 involvement with DCS in a CHINS case involving another of Father's children (“Father's older child”). Around December 2022, while that prior CHINS case was pending, Father completed an assessment and was diagnosed with methamphetamine disorder. Between September 2022 and April 2023, Father completed only one drug screen. In April 2023, Father tested positive for methamphetamine. The prior CHINS case was closed around August 2024, after Father's older child was reunited with that child's mother and the mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of Father's older child.

[33] Around eight months later, in April 2025, F.R. was born exposed to cannabinoids. The FCMS assigned to the instant CHINS case had testified that in this CHINS case, Father had refused to submit to drug screens.

[34] As for Father's history of domestic violence, DCS presented evidence that Father admitted that he had a “substantiated DCS history from 2020 relating to domestic violence.” (Father's Ex. Vol. 1 at 31). Indeed, in the CHINS case involving Father's older child, law enforcement officers “ha[d] been involved in multiple reports of domestic violence” between Father and the mother of Father's older child. (Father's Ex. Vol. 1 at 90). And Father had a history of domestic violence with F.R.’s mother, too. When the assessment FCM spoke with Mother during the initial assessment, Mother acted “very scared” of Father, she disclosed incidents of domestic violence, and she told the assessment FCM that Father had become aggressive with her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 23). In July 2025, Mother sought and obtained an ex parte protective order against Father because Father had threatened her physically and had stalked and harassed her.

[35] This evidence of Father's drug use and his history of domestic violence established that F.R. was seriously endangered. F.R. was around four months old when the factfinding hearing occurred and thus was completely reliant on his caregivers to provide for his basic needs. Father's drug use and refusal to participate in drug screens were particularly problematic and bolstered concerns about Father's ability to appropriately care for F.R.

[36] Although F.R. had been removed from Mother and Father's care shortly after his birth and may not have been directly exposed to his parents’ domestic violence, a trial court need not wait until a tragedy occurs to declare a child a CHINS. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The evidence showed that Father's control and domestic violence issues were ongoing at the time of the factfinding hearing and, contrary to Father's contentions, not a condition that no longer existed. (See Father's Br. 10). And the domestic violence—coupled with Father's history of drug use—presented concerns about the safety and stability of the household and Father's ability to care for F.R.

[37] Furthermore, the trial court found that F.R. required “safety and protection that he was not receiving while in the care of his parents[,]” and that when F.R. was removed from his parents’ care, “neither parent was able to provide a home free from violence and substance use.” (App. Vol. 2 at 44). Father does not challenge this finding, and thus we accept it as true. See B.W., 266 N.E.3d at 749.

[38] As to whether F.R.’s unmet needs are unlikely to be met without court coercion, the record reveals that when the assessment FCM asked Father about completing drug screens and a home visit, Father was adamant that he would only participate in a safe sleep acknowledgement and a safety plan. Father then sent the assessment FCM a cease-and-desist letter seeking a monetary settlement, dismissal of the CHINS case, return of F.R. to his care, and the termination of the assessment FCM's employment.

[39] Father's prior history with DCS also demonstrated why court coercion was needed to ensure that F.R. receives proper care. Indeed, the trial court found that Father had “previously failed to complete similar services in a prior CHINS proceeding that [had] resulted in that mother being granted custody of the child,” a finding that Father does not challenge, and we thus accept as true. (App. Vol. 2 at 44).

[40] Contrary to Father's assertions, the evidence DCS presented established that F.R. was endangered and had unmet needs, and that without court intervention, F.R. would not receive necessary care and supervision. Father's arguments are an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475 (appellate court will neither reweigh evidence nor judge credibility of witnesses). We therefore conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication, and the trial court did not clearly err in adjudicating F.R. to be a CHINS. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.⁴

[41] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   F.R.’s mother (“Mother”) is not participating in this appeal. Facts pertaining to Mother will be included where relevant to Father's appeal.

2.   Father later established that he is the biological father of F.R. The second alleged father, W.R.U., was dismissed as a party to the CHINS proceedings.

3.   Father also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-10 (child born with controlled substance in the body). However, because we conclude that DCS presented sufficient evidence to support F.R.’s CHINS adjudication under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1, we need not determine whether sufficient evidence was presented to support a CHINS adjudication under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-10.

4.   To the extent that Father takes issue with the evidence of his and Mother's criminal histories, arguing that the CHINS “adjudication must be based on the evidence presented in court and not on the allegations in the pleadings” (Father's Br. 10), we note the following: (1) the trial court found that Mother's criminal history, as alleged in the CHINS petition, was “not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence” (see App. Vol. 2 at 44, ¶ 7(A)(2); see also Father's Ex. Vol. 2 at 43); and (2) Father admitted to his criminal history, namely, battery, auto theft, and theft of a firearm (see Father's Ex. Vol. 2 at 31).

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.