MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 20 2016, 8:29 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Daniel C. Reuter Gregory F. Zoeller
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Kurt A. Young Robert J. Henke
Nashville, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
James D. Boyer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
C.L. and J.L., April 20, 2016
Appellants-Defendants, Court of Appeals Case No.
07A04-1510-JC-1611
v. Appeal from the Brown Circuit
Court
Indiana Department of Child The Honorable Judith A. Stewart,
Services, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
07C01-1505-JC-26, 07C01-1505-
JC-27, 07C01-1505-JC-28
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] C.L. (Mother) and J.L. (Father) (collectively, Parents) appeal the trial court’s
determination that their children are Children in Need of Services (CHINS).
Parents argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the CHINS
adjudication.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Parents are married and have three children, M.L., S.L., and H.L. (collectively,
Children), who were born in 2003, 2005, and 2008, respectively. In 2010,
Children were adjudicated CHINS and placed in foster care after law
enforcement discovered an active methamphetamine lab on the same property
where the family lived in a mobile home. Additionally, marijuana and drug
paraphernalia were found inside the home, and Parents both tested positive for
methamphetamine. As part of the dispositional order, Parents were ordered to
participate in marriage counseling and drug treatment. The CHINS case closed
in 2013 and Children were reunified with Parents.
[4] On May 6, 2015, Parents, who at that time had been separated for about a
month, were involved in a domestic violence incident. Father came to visit
Mother at her mother’s home, and they spoke in a car in the driveway while
Children slept inside the house. Mother and Father got into a physical struggle
over a cell phone, during which Mother sustained a bruise on her chest. At
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 10
some point, Father exited the car and Mother attempted to drive away, but
Father jumped onto the hood of the car and tried to break the window. Mother
drove away with Father still on the hood of the car, and Father fell off. Father’s
feet were seriously injured and he was admitted to the hospital for treatment.
When he arrived at the hospital, Father was under the influence of meth and in
possession of marijuana and a meth pipe.
[5] On May 11, 2015, the Brown County Department of Child Services (DCS)
received a report concerning the May 6 domestic violence incident. On May
14, 2015, DCS received an additional report alleging that Parents were using
methamphetamine and marijuana. The next day, Family Case Manager
(FCM) Emily Bock met with Mother at her residence. Mother told FCM Bock
that Children were present at her mother’s house when the May 6 incident
occurred. Mother denied being under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the
time of the incident and stated that she had last used marijuana approximately
nine months before. Mother told FCM Bock that Father had recently broken a
window and kicked a door at their home. Mother stated that she would not be
allowing Father to return to the residence upon his release from the hospital.
Mother refused a drug screen and denied FCM Bock access to the residence on
that date.
[6] FCM Bock returned to Mother’s home on May 27, 2015. This time, Mother
allowed FCM Bock access to the home, but she again refused a drug screen.
FCM Bock informed Mother that DCS was restricting Father’s contact with
Children and that failure to cooperate would result in Children’s removal from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 3 of 10
the home. Mother told FCM Bock that she understood and that she did not
know Father’s whereabouts. FCM Bock could not locate Father, but she was
able to get a message to him through family members about the initial hearing
scheduled for May 28, 2015.
[7] Both Mother and Father appeared at the initial hearing. FCM Bock testified
concerning her investigation up until that point, and the trial court granted
DCS’s request to file a CHINS petition with respect to Children. The trial court
ordered that Children would remain in Mother’s care at that time and have
only supervised visitation with Father.
[8] On June 9, 2015, DCS decided to remove Children from the home after
learning that Mother had, in violation of the trial court’s order, allowed Father
to move back into the home. When FCM Bock and her police escort arrived at
the home to remove Children, Mother admitted that Father had moved back in
so that they could work on their relationship. Mother also admitted that she
was aware that Father was not to have contact with Children unless supervised
by an individual approved by DCS. Mother and Father both refused drug
screens, and Mother told FCM Bock to go ahead and take Children. Children
were placed with their maternal aunt.
[9] On June 11, 2015, DCS filed an amended CHINS petition and a Report of
Preliminary Inquiry. In the report, DCS indicated that Father had told FCM
Bock that Mother had been violent toward him on multiple occasions in the
past, and during the May 6 incident, she had ripped his shirt off and punched
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 4 of 10
him in the face twice, breaking his nose. Father also told FCM Bock that he
smoked marijuana regularly, that he was high on meth when he was admitted
to the hospital, and that he and Mother had used meth together on May 4 or 5,
2015. A detention hearing was held, at which Parents denied the allegations set
forth in the CHINS petition. The trial court ordered Children’s continued
placement outside the home and ordered Parents to submit to random drug
screens.
[10] A fact-finding hearing was held on July 1, 2015, at which Parents both testified.
Mother admitted to knowingly violating the trial court’s order by allowing
Father to move back in and stated that she did so because Children were very
upset and missing Father. Mother stated that she had used marijuana a few
months ago, but had not used any other illegal drugs for years. Mother testified
that she did not think there was anything wrong with smoking marijuana in the
garage while Children were in the house playing, and that Children would not
be impacted if she were arrested for using illegal drugs because she would just
bond out. Mother admitted that she had not complied with the court order to
submit to random drug screens because she did not think she should have been
ordered to do so.
[11] At the fact-finding hearing, Father denied telling FCM Bock that Mother had
punched him in the face and broken his nose on May 6. He also denied telling
FCM Bock that he and Mother had used meth together or that he was high on
meth and in possession of marijuana and a meth pipe when he was admitted to
the hospital on May 6. Father admitted to using marijuana to cope with stress,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 5 of 10
but stated it had been two or three months since his last use. He stated that he
did not comply with the court order requiring him to participate in random
drug screens because “[i]t’s [his] right.” Transcript at 101.
[12] FCM Bock testified that she had spoken to Parents about reunification services,
and they had told her that they did not want to be involved with DCS and
offered to give a family member temporary guardianship over Children. When
FCM Bock explained that DCS would not consent to this arrangement because
Children need permanency, Parents offered to voluntarily terminate their
parental rights to Children. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court
took the matter under advisement.
[13] On July 9, 2015, the trial court issued its order adjudicating Children CHINS.
On September 8, 2015, the trial court issued its dispositional order requiring
Parents to participate in reunification services. Parents now appeal. Additional
facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[14] Where, as here, a juvenile court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law in
support of its CHINS determination, we apply a two-tiered standard of review.
Parmeter v. Cass Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 878 N.E.2d 444, 450 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007). First, we consider whether the evidence supports the findings, and
second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will not set aside
the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are
clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 6 of 10
directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an
incorrect legal standard. Id. While we defer to the juvenile court’s findings of
fact, we do not do so to its conclusions of law. Id. Additionally, we will not
reweigh the evidence; rather, we consider the evidence favorable to the
judgment and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. Id.
[15] In this case, DCS alleged Children were CHINS pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-34-
1-1, which provides that a child under eighteen years of age is a CHINS if:
(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; 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.
[16] “Because a CHINS proceeding is a civil action, 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). In reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a CHINS determination, we consider
only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences
flowing therefrom. In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561, 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 7 of 10
[17] In this case, the trial court determined that Children were CHINS because they
were seriously endangered as a result of Parents’ drug use and the domestic
violence in their relationship. On appeal, Parents argue that the trial court’s
finding of endangerment is not supported by sufficient evidence because there is
no indication that Parents ever used drugs or physically fought in the presence
of Children. Parents argue further that there is no indication that Children had
been impacted by or were even aware of any drug use or domestic violence.
[18] We note, as did the trial court, that Children appear to be doing well.
However, DCS need not wait until a child is actually harmed to intervene;
rather, a child may be adjudicated a CHINS if his or her physical or mental
condition is endangered. I.C. § 31-34-1-1; K.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 24
N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). This court has held that a parent’s drug
use while caring for a child can support a CHINS determination, even when the
drug use does not occur in the child’s presence. In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d at 564.
This is so because when a caregiver is under the influence of drugs, a child is
“essentially abandoned . . . without any responsible supervision.” Id. In this
case, Children were previously adjudicated CHINS based on their exposure to
Parents’ illegal drug use, and Father told FCM Bock that he and Mother had
used meth together on May 4 or 5, 2015. Father also told FCM Bock that he
was high on meth when he was admitted to the hospital following the May 6
domestic violence incident. Furthermore, both Parents admitted to using
marijuana, and Mother testified that there was nothing wrong with smoking
marijuana in the garage while Children were inside the house playing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 8 of 10
According to Mother, Children would not be harmed if she were arrested
because she would simply bond out. In light of these facts, we conclude that
the trial court’s finding that Children were seriously endangered by Parents’ use
of illegal drugs was supported by the evidence.
[19] With respect to the domestic violence between Mother and Father, we note that
our Supreme Court has acknowledged that a child’s exposure to domestic
violence can support a CHINS finding. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106; see also In
re S.W., 920 N.E.2d 783, 789-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (affirming CHINS finding
based, in part, on child’s statement that domestic violence had been occurring
in the household). The trial court in this case acknowledged that there was no
evidence that Children actually witnessed the violence between Mother and
Father. However, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing supports a
conclusion that domestic violence is an ongoing problem in Parents’ marriage.
In addition to the May 6 incident, which took place outside the house where
Children were sleeping, Mother reported that Father had recently broken a
window and kicked a door at the home. Father reported that Mother punched
him in the face and broke his nose, and he further asserted that Mother had
been violent toward him on multiple occasions in the past. Even if we accept
Parents’ assertions that Children never directly witnessed the violence, Children
were nevertheless placed at risk due to the pattern of violence and volatility in
Parents’ relationship. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that Children were
seriously endangered as a result of domestic violence is supported by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 9 of 10
evidence. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly
found Children to be CHINS.
[20] Judgment affirmed.
[21] Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 07A04-1510-JC-1611 | April 20, 2016 Page 10 of 10