MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Nov 08 2019, 6:31 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
Amy D. Griner Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Mishawaka, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: S.G. (Child in November 8, 2019
Need of Services) Court of Appeals Case No.
A.G. (Father) and M.G. (Mother), 19A-JC-1010
Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate
Appellants,
Court
v. The Honorable Jason Cichowicz,
Judge
Indiana Department of Child The Honorable Graham C.
Services, Polando, Magistrate
Appellee. Trial Court Cause No.
71J01-1810-JC-563
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 1 of 8
[1] A.G. (“Father”) and M.G. (“Mother,” and together, “Parents”) appeal the trial
court’s determination that S.G., born in January 2003, is a child in need of
services (“CHINS”) and its dispositional order. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) became involved with S.G.
and his sister in 2012 when he was in third grade, the court found he was a
CHINS in May 2012, and the case was closed in April 2013. DCS became
involved with S.G. again when he was in eighth grade when Mother threw
rocks at him and his friend’s family called a hotline. The court found he was a
CHINS in June 2016, and the case was closed in July 2017. In October 2018,
DCS filed a petition alleging that S.G. is again a CHINS, and the court later
ordered Parents to take reasonable steps to find mental health care for him. On
January 14, 2019, the court ordered that S.G. be placed with a foster family.
[3] In February 2019, the court held a factfinding hearing at which it heard
testimony from Dr. John Peterson, S.G., Family Case Managers Elizabeth
Gibbs and Sheila LeSure (“FCM LeSure”), Court Appointed Special Advocate
Brian Gates (“CASA Gates”), and Parents. According to Dr. Peterson, S.G.
described years of an abusive dynamic in the home and reported that Mother
would goad him to kill himself by hanging or drinking bleach, that she would
break objects and strike him, and that she told him that she should have aborted
him and would have him killed if they lived in India. He indicated that S.G.’s
mood was fearful, S.G. expressed hopelessness, and he had no reason to believe
that S.G. was being manipulative. S.G. testified that Mother hit and locked
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 2 of 8
Father out of the house when it was cold, Father slept under a storage shed, and
she threatened to kill Father and him. S.G. testified that he was filling a bottle
with water, Mother said that he did not deserve water and that it was hers and
hit him on the back with a frying pan, he ran to the garage, and she locked the
door and did not let him inside for the rest of the night. He testified that
Mother always took their food upstairs and would not let him have any. S.G.
testified that he did not want to return home, the last sixteen years have been
the same, he has had countless therapy sessions, and he does not think anything
can be done. He testified that Mother told him that, if he testified against her,
she would kill him, Father, and herself.
[4] FCM LeSure recommended that S.G. participate in counseling to address
trauma and not have visits with Parents and stated that Parents felt S.G. did not
need counseling. She indicated that she visited S.G. at school and saw swelling
where he was struck with a pan and that he flinched when a supervisor touched
the area. She testified that S.G. disclosed emotional, verbal, and physical abuse
and repeatedly requested to be removed from the home and said that he was not
safe in the home. She stated that DCS had a meeting to discuss an informal
adjustment, which Parents refused. CASA Gates testified that, after meeting
with S.G. three times and speaking with his foster mother, the mother of his
best friend, a director at his high school, his neighbor, and his sister, among
others, he believed that S.G. was a CHINS. He testified that S.G. had a lot of
anxiety about the proceedings and is very afraid of going home. He
recommended that S.G. not return home, that S.G. and his sister emphasize
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 3 of 8
that they have been subjected to retaliation when they have gone home, and
that he had concerns for S.G.’s safety and mental well-being. He stated that
S.G.’s neighbor heard bloodcurdling yelling from Mother inside the home, and
was afraid for S.G. He testified that S.G. does not want visitation and he did
not recommend visitation.
[5] Mother testified that she never deprived S.G. of food and that she kept some
snacks in her bedroom. She stated that she always said she was glad that S.G.
is her son, S.G. was not honest, and the neighbor’s allegations were false.
Father testified that the rule in his house is that no one can go to bed angry or
hungry. He said that he had an issue with the neighbor who had weekend
parties. The court found that Parents were largely not credible, the picture they
painted was far too rosy, and that S.G. is credible and has been the victim of
physical abuse. It found that Parents withdraw and actively deprive S.G. of
basic needs such as food and shelter, that as a result S.G.’s physical and mental
condition is seriously impaired and endangered, and that he is a CHINS.
[6] DCS’s predispositional report stated that S.G. is intelligent, insightful, and
polite, gets along with peers and adults in the community, has friends at school,
in the foster home is characterized as focused and respectful, has outstanding
performance in his classes, and participates in soccer and tutoring. The report
recommends that Parents complete psychological, psychiatric, and domestic
violence evaluations and refrain from contact until the court orders otherwise.
It states that out-of-home placement is appropriate, S.G. has established a
trusting relationship with the foster placement, the foster home is willing to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 4 of 8
work with providers to facilitate visitation with Parents as deemed appropriate
by the court, S.G. should be protected from contact with Parents due to the
nature of the case including emotional and physical abuse, and Parents should
surrender S.G’s birth certificate and passport.
[7] In April 2019, the court held a dispositional hearing at which family case
manager Deborah Banghart indicated that she adopted the recommendations in
the predispositional report as her testimony. Parents requested that S.G. be
returned to them and argued they both had PhDs and are respectable citizens in
the community and no criminal charges had been filed against them. They
argued that they are very strict and that, because S.G. is in a foster home, he
gets to socialize on the weekends, have his license, and go on trips. CASA
Gates stated that he supports DCS’s recommendations and that he does not
support S.G. returning home. The court stated that Parents deny that any
abuse occurred and blame S.G. for everything and that contact with Parents
would cause S.G. harm. The court approved the services set forth in in the
predispositional report, denied Parents’ request that S.G. return home, and set a
review hearing. The court stated in its dispositional order that remaining in the
home would be contrary to S.G.’s welfare, he needs protection, and reasonable
efforts were made by DCS to prevent removal, and it ordered Parents to
complete psychological, psychiatric, and domestic violence evaluations and to
refrain from any contact with S.G. until the court orders otherwise. Parents
filed a motion to modify the dispositional order to remove the requirements that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 5 of 8
they obtain psychiatric and domestic violence evaluations, which the court
denied.
Discussion
[8] Parents claim the trial court’s CHINS determination is clearly erroneous, S.G.’s
health was not endangered, he did not suffer any injury, and he was not
struggling academically or deprived of basic necessities. They assert they were
exercising parental discipline, that he ran away from home, that his punishment
was not severe, and that his allegations defy logic. The State argues that the
trial court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous and that it had the opportunity to
assess S.G. and Parents’ credibility.
[9] We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and
consider only the evidence that supports the trial court’s decision and
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-1287
(Ind. 2014), reh’g denied. We apply the two-tiered standard of whether the
evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment.
Id. At the time, Ind. Code §§ 31-34-1-1 provided:
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:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 6 of 8
(A) the child is not receiving; and
(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court.
(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 198-2019, § 8 (eff. Jul. 1, 2019)). Ind.
Code § 31-34-1-2 provides in part that a child is a CHINS if the child’s physical
or mental health is seriously endangered due to injury by the act or omission of
the child’s parent and the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that the
child is not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court. The CHINS statute does not require that a
court wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306
(Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Because a CHINS determination regards the status of the
child, a separate analysis as to each parent is not required in the CHINS
determination stage. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). The purpose
of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not punish parents. Id. The
resolution of a juvenile proceeding focuses on the best interests of the child,
rather than guilt or innocence as in a criminal proceeding. Id.
[10] The trial court heard extensive testimony from S.G. and his DCS case
managers and found that Parents were not credible, that S.G. was credible, and
that his physical and mental condition is seriously impaired and endangered as
a result of Parents’ refusal to provide basic necessities such as food and shelter.
To the extent Parents invite us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility
of witnesses, we are unable to do so. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1286. The
evidence as set forth above and in the record supports the trial court’s findings
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 7 of 8
and determination that S.G. is a CHINS and that the coercive intervention of
the court is necessary.
[11] Parents also argue that they should have visitation with S.G. Once a child is
determined to be a CHINS, the court holds a hearing to consider alternatives
for the child’s care, treatment, placement, or rehabilitation, the participation of
the parent, and the financial responsibility for the services provided, and it
issues a dispositional decree. See In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106 (citing Ind. Code
§§ 31-34-19-1, -10). Ind. Code § 31-34-21-5.5 provides that the department must
make reasonable efforts to reunify families and that, in determining the extent
to which reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve a family are appropriate, the
child’s health and safety are of paramount concern. CASA Gates and DCS
recommended that Parents not have visitation until further court order, and the
record reveals there is a concern of retaliation and S.G. does not want
visitation. According to DCS, S.G. is traumatized, the foster parents are
willing to facilitate visitation with Parents as deemed appropriate by the court,
and S.G. should be protected from contact with Parents. The court noted that
Parents deny that any abuse occurred and blame S.G. for everything, and
appropriately found that S.G. needs protection and that contact with Parents
would cause S.G. harm.
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[13] Affirmed.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-1010 | November 8, 2019 Page 8 of 8