In the Matter of: B.G. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and C.G. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 09 2019, 8:54 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Rory Gallagher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: August 9, 2019
B.G. (Minor Child), Child in Court of Appeals Case No.
Need of Services, 19A-JC-4
and Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
C.G. (Mother),
The Honorable Marilyn A.
Appellant-Respondent, Moores, Judge
The Honorable Beth L. Jansen,
v. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
The Indiana Department of 49D09-1808-JC-2132
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 1 of 14
[1] C.G. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order finding her child, B.G. (Child),

to be a child in need of services (CHINS). Mother argues that the evidence is

insufficient to support the CHINS adjudication. Finding the evidence

sufficient, we affirm.

Facts
[2] Mother has a history with the Department of Child Services (DCS). In 2012,

DCS filed a petition alleging that Mother’s two oldest children were CHINS

because of Mother’s untreated mental health issues.1 In June 2016, Mother

admitted that her three older children were CHINS because she needed

“assistance in maintaining stable mental health and suitable and appropriate

housing.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 93. Mother failed to participate with

court-ordered services in that case and, in May 2017, the juvenile court changed

the permanency plan for her oldest three children from reunification to

adoption. In June 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parent-child

relationship between Mother and at least one of those children. The status of

the termination case is not revealed by the record; however, the CHINS case

remained open throughout the instant proceedings.

[3] Mother gave birth to Child on June 10, 2018. Two days later, DCS removed

Child from Mother’s care and custody and placed her in relative care. DCS

filed a petition alleging Child to be a CHINS. On August 1, 2018, Child’s

1
The record does not reveal the outcome of this proceeding.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 2 of 14
 Father confined Mother and one of her other children in a bedroom. Mother

called the police. Father threw an object into the wall, resulting in a hole in the

wall, pushed Mother into the closet door, and may have injured the child.

When police arrived, he answered the door with a knife in his hand. Father,

who is not participating in this appeal, was incarcerated on charges stemming

from that incident at the time of the CHINS factfinding in this case.

[4] The CHINS case proceeded to a factfinding hearing on August 9, 2018.

Partway through the hearing, the juvenile court granted DCS’s motion to

continue over Mother’s objection, but did not set a new hearing date. On

August 15, 2018, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the CHINS petition based

on a failure to comply with statutory deadlines. The juvenile court granted the

motion to dismiss on August 23, 2018.2

[5] On August 24, 2018, DCS filed a new petition alleging Child to be a CHINS

based on Mother’s untreated mental health issues, a failure to participate with

service providers in her other open CHINS case, and the August 1 domestic

violence incident.3 The factfinding hearing took place on October 22, 2018.

[6] At the hearing, Mother admitted that she had been diagnosed with borderline

personality disorder, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and severe

2
Mother asks that we take judicial notice of the record in the dismissed CHINS case; DCS objects. By
separate order, we grant the motion, but only to the extent of the dates of the relevant court proceedings—
which, in any event, is all Mother was requesting.
3
Mother explicitly stated that she is not making a res judicata argument that the second CHINS petition is
impermissibly based solely on the allegations of the first CHINS petition. Appellant’s Mtn. to Strike p. 5.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 3 of 14
 depression. Dr. Mukesh Desai, a staff psychiatrist with Midtown Mental

Health, testified that he had diagnosed Mother with schizoaffective disorder

and borderline personality disorder in July 2018. He had prescribed Mother

Latuda, a mood stabilizer, but she failed to return for follow-up appointments

in September and October to check on the effectiveness of the medication. She

had not refilled the Latuda prescription and it would have run out before the

factfinding hearing.

[7] Dr. Desai testified that it is critical that Mother return for follow-up

appointments, follow a medication management plan, and regularly attend

individual therapy. Her borderline personality disorder, if untreated, causes her

to be volatile and unpredictable. And her schizoaffective disorder causes

moods that alternate between depressed and manic; it also causes auditory or

visual hallucinations. A person who has these co-existing conditions but fails to

treat them will become gravely compromised in their ability to parent. Patients

with these mental health conditions lose emotional control when experiencing

relatively minor frustrations and moments of ambiguity, both of which are

frequent parts of parenting children, especially infants.

[8] At the appointment when Dr. Desai prescribed Latuda for Mother, she became

extremely agitated because she wanted a different medication; he had to call

security before she began to calm down. At an October 1, 2018, child and

family team meeting, Mother became extremely agitated and erratic, storming

out repeatedly and making statements suggesting to some of those present that

she planned to harm or kill herself. Mother’s family case manager (FCM)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 4 of 14
 reported that at a home visit three days before the factfinding, Mother became

very agitated, could not control her behavior, and lost emotional control when

something did not go the way she had hoped. The FCM explained that Mother

was “explosive in a manner that was concerning.” Tr. Vol. II p. 109.

[9] Mother’s home-based therapist testified at the factfinding hearing, explaining

that the service was closed unsuccessfully after she began refusing to work with

him. He was concerned about Mother’s episodes of paranoia, inability to

remember information, and episodes of extreme agitation. He recommended

that she undergo a mental health evaluation.

[10] Mother visited with Child inconsistently from June 11 through August 6, 2018.

Simon Gelaye was the visit facilitator, reporting that Mother often displayed

concerning behavior. She fell asleep while Child was sleeping in her arms and

failed to support the newborn infant’s head properly. She struggled to calm

down before and during parenting time. Gelaye considered ending at least one

visit early because Mother struggled to calm herself. Mother missed multiple

visits because she failed to wake up on time, and Gelaye became concerned that

she would not be able to wake up if Child needed care or attention. Many visits

ended early.

[11] Sheryl Alexander supervised parenting time between Mother and Child

between August and October 2018. Alexander observed Mother getting

agitated with Gelaye on one occasion and observed combative behaviors at

child and family team meetings, but did not observe any troubling behavior

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 5 of 14
 during visits. Alexander observed that Mother was nurturing and attentive to

Child and testified that she did not have any safety concerns about Mother’s

parenting. She recommended that Child be placed with Mother. Alexander

admitted that if Mother’s mental health issues were untreated, she would have

safety concerns about Mother’s parenting abilities, but she chose to believe

Mother’s statements that she was receiving treatment.

[12] Mother testified about the domestic violence incident between herself and

Father. She explained that she called the police because the injured child had

asked Father to leave and he refused. She denied that she had ever been in a

domestic violence incident with Father and testified that she did not “have

plans” to live with Father “at this time.” Id. at 41, 53. Mother would not say

that she would never live with Father again. Id. at 53.

[13] Mother began to exhibit paranoia about Father. In September 2018, Mother

called the police and reported that she thought Father had asked someone to

come watch her home and vandalize her car. Mother told Alexander that they

needed to be aware of their surroundings when they left a visit together because

Father had sent people to follow them. Alexander asked Mother if she had a

protective order and Mother replied that she did not. Alexander found this

behavior concerning enough that she reported it to a DCS supervisor.

[14] On December 4, 2018, the juvenile court found Child to be a CHINS. In

relevant part, it found as follows:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 6 of 14
 10. Mother does not demonstrate an awareness of the current
state of affairs. Mother has issues processing and her
testimony is convoluted and shows that she has mental
health issues. Mother does not appreciate that she was
court ordered to participate in services for her older
children. Mother erroneously believes that she
successfully completed services for the older children yet at
one time their plan of permanency was changed to
adoption.

11. Mother[’s] testimony is convoluted and contradictory and
the Court finds her incredible.

12. Mother has been diagnosed with personality disorder,
schizo-affective disorder, [and] severe depression. These
are long-standing mental health issues that are not
successfully addressed as of yet.

***

15. Mother denies that there was any domestic violence
between herself and the Father, which shows that she is
not attuned to reality. . . .

16. The inability of Mother to recognize domestic violence
and its toxic effects on all involved pose a danger to the
safety and well-being of any child placed in her care.

***

18. Mother has had multiple service providers under the JC
cause for her older children and she has not complied with
any service providers.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 7 of 14
 19. Although Mother has the ability to meet with mental
health professional and she does on occasion, her mental
health is concerning for dealing with any type of conflict
and would make parenting an infant difficult.

20. Mother’s current claim of willingness to participate in
services and mental health treatment does not satisfy this
Court’s concerns about the necessity of coercive
intervention especially in light of this Court’s prior
findings for older children and Mother’s continued denial
as to this petition.

***

24. With Mother’s mental health diagnosis, the concerns are
Mother’s volatile presentation and how it affects the ability
to parent. Mother’s ability to safely parent will be
significantly compromised by her mental health issues and
her inability to meet with service providers and satisfy
them. The ability to safely parent could be compromised
because of the stresses that parenting presents.

***

33. [The Guardian ad Litem (GAL)] does not believe it is in
[Child’s] best interests to be placed in her Mother’s care
because of Mother’s unstable mental health and the
serious safety risks that [it] presents. [The GAL] has seen
concerning erratic behaviors by Mother which preclude
her from properly parenting this child and the older
children as well.

***

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 8 of 14
 36. [Mother’s erratic and volatile behavior] is concerning
because much of parenting is dealing with the frustrations
[that] children present.

37. Mother has NOT been cooperative or compliant and has
not shown that she is medically compliant and has not
shown that she is addressing her mental health issues.

38. . . . Although Ms. Alexander stated she has no safety
concerns for Mother’s parenting[,] she has seen Mother’s
behavior become problematic when confronted with
frustrating situations, which lead this Court to have safety
concerns for this child in the care of Mother.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 93-95. On December 4, 2018, the juvenile court

held a dispositional hearing and ordered Mother to participate with home-based

therapy, complete an assessment for domestic violence services and follow all

recommendations, and either complete a psychological assessment or provide a

copy to DCS of a psychological evaluation that had been completed in the

preceding twelve months. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
[15] Our Supreme Court has explained the nature of a CHINS proceeding and

appellate review of a CHINS finding as follows:

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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 9 of 14
 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.

There are three elements DCS must prove for a juvenile court to
adjudicate a child a CHINS. DCS must first prove the child is
under the age of eighteen; DCS must prove one of eleven
different statutory circumstances exist that would make the child
a CHINS; and finally, in all cases, DCS must prove the child
needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not
receiving and that he or she is unlikely to be provided or accepted
without the coercive intervention of the court. In re N.E., 919
N.E.2d at 105.

In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253-54 (Ind. 2012) (footnote omitted).

[16] Here, DCS alleged that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section

31-34-1-1, which provides as follows:

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;
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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 10 of 14
 Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision 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).

[17] Here, Mother argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Child’s

physical or mental condition was seriously endangered as a result of Mother’s

mental health issues or of the domestic violence in the family.4 5

[18] Turning first to Mother’s mental health issues, she insists that the juvenile court

focused impermissibly on a concern that Mother’s mental health could seriously

endanger Child in the future rather than a finding that Child is currently

seriously endangered. We agree with Mother that this would, indeed, be an

impermissible concern on which to base a CHINS adjudication. Here,

however, the record is replete with evidence showing that Child would be

4
DCS spends much of its brief responding to an argument that Mother did not make—namely, that the
juvenile court erred in considering Mother’s history of mental illness, DCS involvement, and domestic
violence. Appellee’s Br. p. 19-27. Mother has moved to strike this portion of the brief. By separate order, we
deny that motion, as DCS is free to frame the issues as it wishes. We agree with Mother, however, that this
portion of DCS’s brief seems to be a proverbial ship passing Mother’s actual argument in the night.
5
To the extent that Mother may be arguing that the evidence did not show that the coercive intervention of
the court was necessary, we note that the fact that she was failing to participate with court-ordered services in
her other CHINS case dramatically undercuts this argument. Moreover, beyond her own testimony, which
the trial court found to be not credible, there is no evidence in the record that she was participating with
mental health treatment of her own volition.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 11 of 14
seriously endangered, right now, if she were placed in Mother’s care and

custody.

• Mother had an open CHINS case at the time of this factfinding for her
three older children. In that case, she had failed to participate with
services, her children were not placed with her, and their plan of
permanency had been changed to adoption.
• Mother has multiple, serious mental health diagnoses. Beyond her own
claims, which the juvenile court explicitly found to be not credible, there
is no evidence in the record that she is currently receiving treatment,
including either medication or therapy, for those conditions.
• A patient with those co-existing conditions who fails to treat them is
gravely compromised in her ability to parent because she will lose
emotional control when experiencing minor frustrations.
• There are multiple examples in the record of Mother losing emotional
control, including episodes of volatility, agitation, and explosive
behavior. The most recent incident occurred just days before the
factfinding hearing.
• Mother’s first visitation supervisor reported that Mother’s behavior
during visits was concerning. She struggled to calm herself down before
and during parenting time. She fell asleep holding Child and failed to
support the infant’s head properly. She missed multiple visits because
she failed to wake up on time.
• Mother’s second visitation supervisor did not have concerns about
Mother’s behavior during visits, but she did observe volatile behavior
from Mother on other occasions. She also testified that, while Mother
had reported to her that she was receiving mental health treatment, she
would have safety concerns about Mother’s parenting if her mental
health issues were untreated.
• The GAL had been working with Mother’s older children in the other
CHINS case and believed that Child would be seriously endangered if
placed in Mother’s care based on Mother’s erratic behavior and unstable
mental health.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 12 of 14
 While Mother seeks to minimize this evidence by conceding that she sometimes

“lose[s] her temper, raise[s] her voice, or address[es] others in a demanding

tone,” appellant’s br. p. 15, we are not persuaded with this characterization of

the record, nor does this comply with our standard of review. Additionally, in

emphasizing the more positive testimony of the second visitation supervisor

while overlooking much of the more negative testimony, Mother asks us to

reweigh the evidence, which we may not do.

[19] This Court has noted that a parent’s mental illness, in and of itself, does not

necessarily present a serious danger to the child. In re E.Y., 93 N.E.3d 1141,

1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Here, however, it is not the mere fact of Mother’s

mental illness that supports the CHINS finding. Instead, it is the manifestation

of that mental illness, including volatile and explosive behavior and an inability

to handle minor frustrations with emotional control. Unless and until Mother

is in regular mental health treatment that is helping her to regulate her

emotions, we have little difficulty finding that the juvenile court reasonably

concluded that Child would be seriously endangered if placed in Mother’s care

and custody. See In re K.P.G., 99 N.E.3d 677, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (noting

that an inability or unwillingness to address mental illness when it creates an

unsafe environment is proof of serious endangerment).

[20] With respect to the domestic violence issue, we note that it appears that Mother

was a victim and called the police to report the altercation, leading to Father’s

arrest and incarceration. We would certainly not find this incident, in and of

itself, sufficient to support a CHINS adjudication. What concerned the juvenile

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 13 of 14
 court, however, was that at the factfinding hearing, Mother denied that any

domestic violence had ever occurred between her and Father and, while she

stated that she did not have plans to live with Father again, she refused to rule

out the possibility categorically. It was Mother’s “inability . . . to recognize

domestic violence and its toxic effects on all” that formed part of the basis of

the CHINS finding, rather than the incident itself or her decision to report it.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 93. While this evidence, alone, would not have

sufficed to support a CHINS finding, we find that it was not erroneous for the

juvenile court to consider it along with all the other evidence in finding that

Child was a CHINS.

[21] It is undeniable, based on the record, that Mother and Child have a bond and

that Mother genuinely loves her daughter. We hope that the services offered in

the CHINS case will enable Mother to reach a place where she can safely and

appropriately parent her child.

[22] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-4 | August 9, 2019 Page 14 of 14