In the Matter of: L.G., C.G., A.G., and V.G. (Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services) M.G. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Mar 29 2018, 10:25 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John T. Wilson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: March 29, 2018
L.G., C.G., A.G., and V.G. Court of Appeals Case No.
(Minor Children Alleged to be in 48A02-1710-JC-2457
Need of Services) Appeal from the Madison Circuit
M.G. (Father), Court
The Honorable G. George Pancol,
Appellant-Respondent,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
48C02-1706-JC-274
48C02-1706-JC-275
Indiana Department of Child
48C02-1706-JC-276
Services, 48C02-1706-JC-277
Appellee-Petitioner
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] M.G. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s determination that his four children
are in need of services (CHINS). Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Me.G. (“Mother”)1 and Father are married, live in Anderson, and have four
children together: L.G., C.G., A.G., and V.G. When this CHINS proceeding
began, the children were 10 years old, 9 years old, 4 years old, and 6 months
old, respectively.
[3] Mother and Father have a history with the Department of Child Services
(DCS). In Fall 2016, L.G., C.G., and A.G. were adjudicated CHINS. 2 The
primary concerns were that C.G. was leaving home without the parents’
knowledge and that Mother and Father needed mental-health services. C.G. is
autistic and non-verbal and has a history of leaving the house naked, running
across the street to a neighbor’s house, entering the neighbor’s house, and
taking a picture off the wall and throwing it to the ground.
[4] Initially, Mother engaged in mental-health services and was diagnosed with
schizoaffective disorder. Mother, however, stopped participating after only a
1
Mother admitted the CHINS allegations and is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly, we discuss only the
facts relevant to Father’s appeal.
2
V.G. was not yet born, so she was not part of that CHINS proceeding.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 2 of 10
month or two. Father did not think that Mother had any mental-health issues
and refused to discuss with DCS Mother’s issues or the possibility of her re-
engaging with services. The original CHINS case was closed in March 2017
because DCS installed keypad locks on the exterior doors of the home and there
were “no safety concerns for the children[.]” Tr. Vol. I p. 115.
[5] Three months later, on June 9, Mother let C.G. out of the house because “the
voices in her head told her” to let him out. Id. at 18. C.G., who was naked and
“covered in feces,” ran to the neighbor’s house and threw the same picture on
the ground. Id. at 77. Because C.G. was “covered in feces,” the neighbor
called the police. Mother was able to retrieve C.G. from the neighbor before
the police arrived. An Anderson police officer responded to the call and spoke
with Mother. Mother appeared “confused” and not “really with it.” Id. at 83.
However, the officer did not call DCS or seek to remove the children from the
home. Father was not home during any of these events.
[6] The next day, Mother, Father, and V.G. were in the garage together. Father
went inside the house to use the restroom. When he came back outside,
Mother and V.G. were gone. A little while later, workers at the Anderson
Municipal Airport called the police because Mother was walking alongside a
runway with V.G. By the time officers arrived, Mother and V.G. were in the
airport parking lot. Mother was drunk and breastfeeding V.G. Officers asked
her multiple times to stop breastfeeding. She refused and became belligerent.
Mother eventually agreed to give V.G. to medics who had arrived and to take a
field-breathalyzer test. The test indicated that her blood alcohol concentration
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 3 of 10
was .212. She admitted to consuming “a quarter fifth of vodka” but had
disposed of the bottle before officers arrived. Id. at 91. Mother was arrested
and charged with neglect of a dependent. V.G. was transported to the hospital
for assessment but had no apparent injuries. DCS was called to the hospital to
investigate, and Father was called to pick up V.G. from the hospital. DCS
spoke with Father and let him take V.G. home. All four children were allowed
to remain in Father’s care.
[7] On June 21, DCS filed petitions to have all four children adjudicated CHINS.
DCS did not seek to have the children removed from the home. One week
later, Family Case Manager (FCM) Christy Brubaker received a copy of the
June 9 police report and spoke with Father about the incident. Father stated
that he was not home at the time because he had taken L.G. and A.G. to the
ballpark and that he had no idea that C.G. had gotten out of the house.
However, he admitted that he knew on June 9 that Mother was “slipping”
mentally but chose to leave C.G. and V.G. in her care. Id. at 126. Father
added that his plan was to post bail for Mother and have her move back home
so that she could “decompress” and he could “assess” her. Id. Father is not a
mental-healthcare professional, and despite being told that Mother was hearing
voices on June 9, Father believed that she was only hearing voices because of
the stress of being in jail. Based on Father’s comments that he knew Mother
was “slipping” and chose to leave V.G. (an infant) and C.G. (a non-verbal,
autistic child) in her sole care, DCS amended its CHINS petitions and sought to
have all of the children removed from the home. The amended petitions were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 4 of 10
granted on June 30. The children were placed in foster care; L.G., A.G., and
V.G. were placed together, and C.G. was placed in a separate home because of
his autism.
[8] A fact-finding hearing was held in August 2017, and multiple witnesses
testified, including C.G.’s foster mother and Father. C.G.’s foster mother
stated that C.G.’s medications were not being properly administered when he
arrived. She said that there was at least one missing prescription and that based
on the fill date and dosage instructions that his other prescriptions either had
too many or too few pills. She had an appointment with a doctor to have
C.G.’s medications re-evaluated. Regarding C.G.’s propensity to flee the
house, she admitted that C.G. had gotten out of her house on three occasions—
twice through the front door and once by climbing out of his bedroom window.
However, her yard was fully fenced, including the front yard, and C.G. was not
able to get out of the yard.
[9] Father did not believe that the children were CHINS because he was able to
care for them and Mother without the court’s intervention. He stated that the
family did the best that they could to keep C.G. inside but that “we’re human”
and “forget” to lock the door sometimes. Id. at 169. He pointed out that C.G.
had gotten out of his current foster home three times and that before the
children were removed, he cared for all four of them for eighteen days without
incident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 5 of 10
[10] Regarding caring for Mother, Father posted bail for her in July and
immediately checked her into a mental-health facility, where she stayed for six
days. She then began an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) and saw a
therapist and psychiatrist multiple times a month. The record is unclear as to
where Mother was living at the time of the hearing. Because of her criminal
case, a no-contact order was in place between Mother and V.G. Father was
hopeful that the criminal court would vacate the no-contact order at a hearing
being held three days after the CHINS fact-finding hearing. If the order was
vacated, Mother would move back into the house, and Father’s mother would
assist with supervising Mother with the children. If the order was not vacated,
Mother was to live with her parents in Greenwood.
[11] When asked about Mother’s mental-health issues, Father acknowledged that by
June 9 he had noticed her “slipping” but that meant she was “being more quiet
and more reserved” than normal. Id. at 164. He had “no clue” that she was
hearing voices. Id. Nevertheless, he denied that Mother had schizoaffective
disorder and claimed that she was merely depressed. He also denied that
Mother abused alcohol and said that alcohol was not kept in their home.
[12] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adjudicated all four children
CHINS. It noted, “We’ve been down this road before. . . . [T]here is [sufficient
evidence] based upon the June 9th and the June 10th incidents and the um fact
that we’ve been here before which leads the Court to believe that coercive
intervention of the Court is warranted under the statute.” Id. at 180-81. The
court then held a dispositional hearing and issued a dispositional order
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 6 of 10
requiring Father to participate in services with DCS, and L.G. and A.G. were
returned to the care and custody of Mother and Father. C.G. and V.G. were
ordered to remain in the care and custody of their respective foster parents.
[13] Father now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[14] Father argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s
determination that the children are CHINS. A CHINS proceeding focuses on
the best interests of the children, not the “guilt or innocence” of the parents. In
re D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “The purposes of a CHINS
case are to help families in crisis and to protect children, not punish parents.”
Id. To prove a CHINS allegation, DCS must show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that: (1) the children are under the age of eighteen; (2) one of eleven
different statutory circumstances exists that would make the children CHINS
under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 to -11; and (3) the care, treatment, or
rehabilitation needed to address those circumstances is unlikely to be provided
or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. In re N.E., 919
N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). Here, the trial court adjudicated the children
CHINS under Section 1, which states:
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 7 of 10
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.
Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1. The final element “guards against unwarranted State
interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families where parents
lack the ability to provide for their children, not merely where they encounter
difficulty in meeting a child’s needs.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind.
2014) (quotations omitted) (emphases in original).
[15] This Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the
witnesses. In re D.F., 83 N.E.3d 789, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Rather, we
consider only the evidence that supports the court’s determination and
reasonable inference drawn therefrom. Id. We will reverse the court’s
determination only upon a showing that the decision was clearly erroneous. Id.
[16] Father argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication of his
children as CHINS and that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary.
With regard to L.G. and A.G., Father claims that the court erred because there
was no evidence presented that he was not meeting their needs. In its written
order, the trial court adjudicated the children CHINS because of “an [i]nability,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 8 of 10
refusal, or neglect of a parent, guardian, or custodian to supply child with
necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 42-43.3 While the events of June 9 and 10 involved
only C.G. and V.G., Mother’s mental-health issues are not limited to impacting
only those two children. During the first CHINS proceeding, Mother stopped
attending mental-health services. Not only did Father acquiesce in Mother’s
decision to stop attending services, but he has also repeatedly downplayed the
severity of Mother’s mental-health issues. He claimed that Mother heard voices
only after being in jail and that she needs to “decompress” at home where he
can “assess” her. Furthermore, he claims that hearing voices is not a symptom
of schizoaffective disorder but that Mother is merely depressed. When Mother
is not receiving mental-health services, all of her children are at risk. There is
no way to predict what the voices she hears will tell her to do, and on June 9
they told her to let C.G. out of the house, despite his disabilities. A trial court
need not wait until tragedy occurs before entering a CHINS finding. D.P., 72
N.E.3d at 980. In other words, the court need not wait until L.G. and A.G. are
involved in an incident with Mother to adjudicate them CHINS.
[17] As for C.G. and V.G., Father claims the trial court erred because he was not
home on June 9 and that there was no evidence that he was not meeting their
needs. Father, however, knew by June 9 that Mother was “slipping” mentally.
3
Father includes only the CHINS order relating to A.G. in his appendix. We are left to assume that the
other three orders had similar, if not identical, findings and conclusions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 9 of 10
Yet, he chose to leave his autistic, non-verbal child and infant child in her sole
care. As already discussed, Father has minimized Mother’s mental-health
issues and did nothing to help her or protect his children. By minimizing
Mother’s issues, Father was not meeting the needs of his children. The CHINS
adjudication for C.G. and V.G. was not clearly erroneous.
[18] Father also contends that there is no evidence that the children’s needs would
go unmet without the coercive intervention of the court. During the first
CHINS case, Mother and Father stopped engaging with DCS’s service
providers. That case was closed in March 2017. Only after DCS reengaged
with Mother and Father did they seek mental-health treatment for Mother, even
though Father knew by June 9 that Mother’s mental health was “slipping.”
While the trial court labeled these efforts as “voluntary,” we are hard pressed to
believe that they would have occurred without the current CHINS proceeding
or that they would continue if the CHINS petitions were closed. Accordingly,
we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that coercive intervention of the court is
necessary to ensure the needs of the children are met.
[19] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-JC-2457 | March 29, 2018 Page 10 of 10