MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 30 2017, 7:13 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Danielle L. Gregory Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Marjorie Newell
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re The Matter of S.G. (Minor March 30, 2017
Child); Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1610-JC-2351
P.G. (Mother),
Appeal from the Marion Superior
Appellant-Respondent, Court
v. The Honorable Marilyn Moores,
Judge
The Indiana Department of The Honorable Rosanne Ang,
Child Services, Magistrate
Appellee-Petitioner. Trial Court Cause No.
49D09-1601-JC-211
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 1 of 9
Statement of the Case
[1] P.G. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating S.G. (“S.G.”) to be
a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Mother argues that the Department of
Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) S.G.’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously
endangered as a result of Mother’s inability, refusal, or neglect to supply S.G.
with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision;
and (2) S.G. needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that she was unlikely to be
provided without the coercive intervention of the court. Finding sufficient
evidence to support the adjudication, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS
adjudication.
Facts
[3] In 2015, Mother lived with her paternal grandparents and her father at the
grandparents’ home. After running away, she was adjudicated to be a CHINS
and court ordered to participate in a residential treatment program at Valle
Vista Health System. In January 2016, while still in treatment, sixteen-year-old
Mother gave birth to S.G. Mother was unable to take S.G. with her to Valle
Vista, and her grandparents were unable to take placement of S.G. because of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 2 of 9
their history with DCS. Because no other family members were available to
care for S.G., she was placed in foster care.
[4] Five days after S.G.’s birth, DCS filed a petition alleging that she was a
CHINS. Specifically, the petition alleged that Mother lacked both the ability to
provide S.G. with a safe, stable, and appropriate living environment and the
financial means and parenting skills to provide S.G. with basic care and
necessities. The petition further alleged that Mother was a patient at Valle Vista
and had not successfully demonstrated an alternative plan for S.G.’s care.
Therefore, according to the petition, the coercive intervention of the Court was
necessary to ensure S.G.’s safety and well-being.
[5] Evidence presented at the July 2016 fact-finding hearing revealed that Mother
had initially participated in supervised visitation with S.G. at Valle Vista. By
the time of the hearing, however, Mother had been discharged from Valle Vista
and was living at her grandparents’ house with her grandparents, father, and
several other family members. Mother had never been alone with S.G. and had
been participating in supervised parenting time with S.G. four days a week at
her grandparents’ home. At the time of the hearing, Mother was visiting with
S.G. two hours three days a week and six to eight hours one day a week.
Mother admitted that she had begun ending the longer visits early because she
had “gotten tired and then like the whole situation exhausted – was exhausting .
. . .” (Tr. 16).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 3 of 9
[6] Visitation facilitator Whitney Gaines (“Gaines”) expressed her concern that
Mother had begun ending the visits early. For example, during one visit,
Mother said she was tired and wanted to end the long visit four hours early so
she could get some sleep. However, toward the end of the visit, Mother “went
and got dressed and changed her clothes and some friends had c[o]me by so
when [we were] leaving[,] she took baby to the vehicle and then she went
outside to meet her friends.” (Tr. 46). Gaines also explained that Mother
needed a child care plan since she would be returning to school. Gaines was
concerned that grandparents had significant health issues and would not be able
to care for the child. Grandmother was on oxygen and there were several tanks
in the house; yet, other members of the household continued to smoke. Father
was on house arrest and had a suspended license but continued to drive and
was the primary provider of transportation in the household. Father’s girlfriend
had her own open DCS case, and others who lived in the house had not yet
completed background checks. Other safety concerns included the recent
infestation of bedbugs in the grandparents’ home and the lack of safety items,
such as safety gates, that had been recommended in the home. Gaines also
wanted to be sure that Mother was “able to adjust to school in addition to
having a child and adjust to all of the other services before placing the child
back in the home.” (Tr. 53).
[7] DCS family case manager Kevisha Brookshire (“Brookshire”) also testified that
she was concerned about Mother becoming distracted during the longer visits
and ending them early. Specifically, Brookshire explained that “if [Mother is]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 4 of 9
shortening visits how do I know [she’s] ready to be a full-time parent . . . .” (Tr.
33). Brookshire also testified that Mother needs guidance on parenting skills,
which is a safety concern. When asked why she felt that S.G. should be
adjudicated to be a CHINS, Brookshire explained as follows:
[Mother] would benefit from the help of DCS providing her with
ongoing services. I mean I, I believe [Mother] could be a great
mother, but I think she needs a little bit more time to learn how
to adjust to being a teen mom cause it’s definitely not easy and
she’s still sixteen and a teenager and she’s still sixteen and
want[s] to do teenager things. So, [Mother] needs a little more
time to adjust to learning on how to be a teen mom and
balancing out being a teenager on top of balancing out how to be
in school and I don’t know if [Mother] will be able to do that on
her own.
(Tr. 36).
[8] Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order, which concluded that
S.G. was a CHINS and provided in relevant part as follows:
14. [S.G.]’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. [Mother] is a sixteen-year-old mother who has a
history of running away from home and was recently discharged
from a residential facility. [Mother] has not been able to sustain
more than a few hours of parenting time with her child at a time
and is not ready to parent the child full-time.
15. [S.G] needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that she is not
receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 5 of 9
coercive intervention of the court. This Court is not required to
wait until a child is harmed before intervening. The condition of
this seven-month-old-child is that she requires a consistent
caregiver who is able to provide for all of her needs. Until
[Mother] acquires the skills to care for herself and her child, the
intervention of this Court is needed to ensure that [S.G.] obtains
the care she requires.
(App. 104). Mother now appeals.
Decision
[9] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS
adjudication. When determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support
a CHINS determination, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the
judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2
N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). This Court will not reweigh the evidence or
reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 1286. Where, as here, a juvenile
court’s order contains specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, we
engage in a two-tiered review. In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and
then, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. Findings
are clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences to be drawn
therefrom that support them. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if the
findings do not support the juvenile court’s conclusions or the conclusions do
not support the resulting judgment. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 6 of 9
[10] A mother’s constitutionally protected right to raise her child is not without
limitation. E.P. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family and Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026,
1031-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). This is because the State has a compelling
interest in protecting the welfare of the child by intervening in the parent-child
relationship when parental neglect, abuse, or abandonment is at issue. Id. at
1032.
[11] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind.
2010). Therefore, DCS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. Id. INDIANA CODE § 31-34-
1-1 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, guardian, or custodian to supply the
child with the 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.
[12] A CHINS designation focuses on the child’s condition rather than the parent’s
culpability. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105. 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 7 of 9
[13] Here, Mother specifically contends that DCS failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that: (1) S.G.’s physical or mental condition
was seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of [Mother’s]
inability, refusal, or neglect to supply S.G. with necessary food, clothing,
shelter, medical care, education, or supervision; and (2) S.G. needs care,
treatment, or rehabilitation that she was unlikely to receive without the coercive
intervention of the court. We address each of her contentions in turn.
[14] First, our review of the evidence reveals that after sixteen-year-old Mother, who
had previously been adjudicated to be a CHINS, was discharged from the
residential treatment facility that she was court ordered to attend, she began
ending her visits with her daughter early. She had never been alone with her
daughter and had not spent more than a few hours at a time parenting her child.
Mother lived with her paternal grandparents, her father, and other relatives,
many of whom had not completed background checks. Both grandparents had
health issues. Grandmother was on oxygen; yet, others in the household
smoked in the house. Father was on house arrest, and even though his license
had been suspended, he was the primary driver in the household. His girlfriend
had an open case with DCS. In addition, grandparents’ home had recently
become infested with bed bugs, and no one had provided safety items, such as
safety gates, that had been recommended for the home. This evidence supports
the trial court’s conclusion that S.G.’s physical or mental condition was
seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of Mother’s inability to
supply S.G. with the necessary supervision.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 8 of 9
[15] Our review of the evidence further reveals that, at the time of the fact-finding
hearing, Mother lacked the skills necessary to care for her infant daughter.
Mother had never been alone with her daughter. In addition, she was faced
with health and safety concerns in her grandparents’ home, such as household
members who had not had background checks and who were smoking in the
house around oxygen tanks and an infestation of bed bugs. Also,
recommended safety items for S.G., such as safety gates, had not been
purchased. This evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that sixteen-year-
old Mother was simply unable to remedy these situations and provide S.G. with
a safe environment without the coercive intervention of the court. We therefore
find sufficient evidence to support S.G.’s adjudication as a CHINS.
[16] Affirmed.
May, J. and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 9 of 9