MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 07 2017, 6:10 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT FATHER ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Paula M. Sauer Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Danville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT MOTHER Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Jeffery A. Earl
Indianapolis, Indiana
Danville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: A.L., a Child Alleged to November 7, 2017
be a Child in Need of Services, Court of Appeals Case No.
32A01-1706-JC-1325
L.L. (Father) and A.L. (Mother),
Appeal from the Hendricks
Appellants-Respondents, Superior Court
v. The Honorable Karen M. Love,
Judge
The Indiana Department of Trial Court Cause No.
Child Services, 32D03-1610-JC-122
Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 1 of 20
[1] L.L (Father) and A.L. (Mother) appeal the trial court’s order finding their
minor child, A.L. (Child), to be a child in need of services (CHINS). 1 The
parents argue that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
CHINS adjudication. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Mother and Father are married and have three children, two of whom are
adults and one of whom is Child, who was born in February 2008. Father’s job
requires him to travel out of town overnight during the week, so Mother is
Child’s primary caregiver.
[3] Mother has a prior conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI) and drinks
about three glasses of wine every day. Father stated that she has been
diagnosed with bipolar disorder but there is no evidence in the record that she is
receiving mental health treatment.
[4] On August 25, 2016, Mother drove herself, Child, and her two- or three-year-
old grandchild to the emergency room because she had an undisclosed physical
ailment. The nurse who attempted to care for Mother was so concerned about
her behavior that the nurse contacted Rebecca Saylor, a hospital social worker,
to evaluate Mother’s mental health. By the time Saylor arrived at the
emergency room, Mother and the children had left. But they soon returned,
1
Father and Mother are represented by different attorneys. Father’s attorney drafted the appellant’s brief in
this case and Mother later joined in that brief by permission of this Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 2 of 20
and Mother began accusing hospital employees of stealing her bank statement.
Saylor observed Mother to be “angry, using explicit language,” loud,
aggressive, and upset. Tr. p. 51. While Mother was yelling at hospital
employees, her grandchild was unattended in the waiting room and Child was
trying to talk to Mother and get her attention so that they could leave. Hospital
security personnel became so concerned about Mother’s aggressive behavior
that they asked her to leave.
[5] Saylor was concerned about the safety of the children in Mother’s care based on
her behavior and possible intoxication. She voiced her concerns to the security
personnel but they “overruled” her because they were “concerned for safety”
based on Mother’s aggressive behavior. Id. at 54.
[6] Someone at the hospital notified law enforcement, and at some point, Danville
Police Officer Jerry Cunningham received a dispatch about a possible driver
under the influence with two small children in the vehicle. Around 8:00 p.m.,
he observed a vehicle that matched the description in the dispatch and pulled
the vehicle over. The vehicle had been driving at a high rate of speed and did
not have its headlights turned on. The driver, later determined to be Mother,
“was upset, very agitated and appeared to have a strong odor of alcohol on her.
Her eyes were bloodshot, appeared to be, in my opinion, intoxicated.” Id. at
62. Officer Cunningham observed two children in the backseat of the car and
noticed that “[t]hey were both crying and seemed to be very afraid.” Id. at 63.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 3 of 20
[7] Officer Cunningham asked Mother for contact information for an adult who
could come pick up the children. She was uncooperative, stating “she didn’t
know any of the phone numbers. She had a cell phone with her and we made
several attempts to try to get her to cooperate with us . . . she wouldn’t unlock
her phone to let us even try to get a number from her.” Id. at 65. At some
point, Mother’s adult daughters arrived at the scene to pick up the children,
though the record does not reveal who contacted them or how the phone
number was obtained. Throughout the traffic stop, Mother was “very
uncooperative . . . she was loud, and she cried, and she was [sic] abusive
language, cussed at us . . . .” Id. at 66.
[8] At some point, Avon Police Officer Alex Howell also responded to the scene.
When he encountered Mother, he concluded that she was intoxicated because
of an “[o]dor of alcohol emanating from her person, unsteady balance, glassy
eyes, slurred speech, [and] abusive attitude towards responding officers.” Id. at
75. Officer Howell performed three field sobriety tests. Mother claimed she
was unable to perform the horizontal gaze test because of an eye condition.
She failed to complete the heel to toe step test because she could not or would
not stand still long enough to listen to all the officer’s instructions. And she
failed the third test, which was the one-leg stand test. Officer Howell then
placed Mother in handcuffs and transported her back to the hospital for a blood
draw. She continued to be combative, pulling away from the officers, refusing
to place her hands behind her back, and refusing to get into the police car.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 4 of 20
[9] Social worker Saylor testified that when police brought Mother back to the
hospital (her third visit that day), Mother was still “[v]ery angry, just
belligerent,” and continued to yell and cuss. Id. at 55. Officer Howell agreed,
stating that Mother was “[s]till physically combative” and “verbally abusive
towards me” when they arrived at the hospital. Id. at 80. At one point, she
“smacked” the officer’s hand and grabbed his wrist. Id. Eventually, Officer
Howell transported Mother to the jail, where she was so combative with jail
staff that she “had to be taken to a padded room to give her some time to calm
down before she could be taken back out and allowed to complete the booking
process.” Id. at 81. Throughout the process, Mother expressed no concern
about the children or their whereabouts to Officer Howell. Mother’s blood
alcohol content was later revealed to be .152—nearly twice the legal limit. At
the time of the CHINS factfinding hearing, Mother was still facing charges
stemming from the incident for two counts of Level 6 Felony OWI with a
minor passenger and for one count of battery on a law enforcement officer.
[10] On August 25, 2016, the Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report
regarding Child based on the OWI incident. Family Case Manager Stephanie
Graham made multiple attempts to contact the parents, including leaving
voicemails, going to their residence three times, and leaving a note with her
contact information at the family’s home. No one responded to her
communication attempts until September 8, when Graham again went to the
home and they answered the door. Both Mother and Father were home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 5 of 20
[11] Father explained to Graham that he is frequently gone for multiple nights at a
time when he travels for work. He stated that he is aware that Mother drinks
wine but did not know how much she generally drinks. When asked whether
Father seemed concerned that the OWI incident had occurred, Graham
responded that “He kind of seemed like it didn’t have anything to do with him
and he wasn’t really expressing deep concern for his child.” Id. at 108.
[12] Throughout Graham’s time at the residence, Mother was agitated, angry, and
disruptive. Mother insisted that the person who left the DCS letter at her home
was a man and refused to accept that it was Graham who had done so. At one
point, Mother slammed the door and stated she would no longer speak with
Graham. Father intervened to try to calm Mother down.
[13] On October 17, 2016, Graham returned to the home to inform the parents that
DCS had decided to file a petition alleging Child to be a CHINS. Mother and
Father were both home. The encounter occurred in the early afternoon, and
Mother admitted that she had already consumed three glasses of wine that day.
Id. at 112. Police Officer Jason Wright had accompanied Graham to the home
and he observed Mother to be angry and agitated. In Officer Wright’s opinion,
Mother appeared to be intoxicated. Officer Wright testified that Mother and
Child walked out to the mailbox and, as they were returning to the house,
Mother “goes [‘]oh look at me, I’m so drunk[’] and walked into the house.” Id.
at 92. Graham performed a mouth swab drug test, which later revealed that her
blood alcohol level was between .04 and .08. On October 20, 2016, DCS filed a
petition alleging Child to be a CHINS.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 6 of 20
[14] At some point, Graham spoke with Father on the phone. He told Graham that
“he believes that she may be bipolar and that her doctor had suggested that she
may be bipolar.” Id. at 116. Father did not express any concern about leaving
Child in Mother’s care with her drinking. Graham was concerned about
Father’s willingness to step in because
he didn’t show a great concern for [Child]. He didn’t have
concerns that [Mother] would drink while he was gone. I mean
he—he just kind of said [‘]I don’t even know why I need to be
involved with this kind of a situation[’] because he was not
arrested, he was not pulled over, he was not drinking, so he
didn’t understand that, you know, he needed to be the caregiver
and be the father.
Id. Graham asked him about Mother’s arrest for OWI with Child present,
wondering if Father had a concern about that situation, and “[h]e stated that he
did not.” Id. at 121.
[15] Graham observed that Child was excessively withdrawn during one of her
home visits. At some point, Graham spoke with Child, who told Graham “that
Mom does drink wine and she acts different when she drinks wine.” Id. at 126.
[16] At some point, Graham went back to the family’s residence to create a safety
plan designed to ensure Child’s safety when she was home alone with Mother.
The team created a plan whereby, when Father was traveling out of town, one
of Mother’s adult daughters would go to the home in the mornings and the
afternoons to check on Mother and Child. Before DCS’s involvement, the
family did not have such a plan in place—there was no oversight to ensure
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 7 of 20
Child’s safety when in Mother’s care. Hendricks County Sheriff’s Corporal
Evan Love accompanied Graham. Corporal Love testified that Mother
didn’t seem to be taking the whole situation very seriously. . . .
She was laughing, she was more concerned about having male
strippers from the Chippendales come out and do welfare checks
on her to check to make sure she’s okay and that the child’s okay
as opposed to a case worker or law enforcement or somebody
else in the safety plan. . . . [S]he actually couldn’t think of the
term Chippendale’s [sic] and she was more concerned about
trying to figure out that actual term than paying attention to
anything else that was going on.
Id. at 99-100.
[17] On December 28, 2016, Family Case Manager Rebecca Pitzer went to the
family’s residence to meet with the family. In front of Child, Mother made the
following statements:
• “[Mother] was discussing how she has issues with her mother
because . . . [Child’s] the only grandchild that she’s never had come over
and stay the night at the maternal grandmother’s house.”
• “[Child] barely gets anything for Christmas as opposed to all these other
kids in the family that do . . . .”
• “[Mother] said that her mother wanted her to have an abortion when she
was pregnant with [Child] . . . .”
• “[Mother] had said that someone thought she was pregnant and she
talked about . . . that she hasn’t had sexual intercourse for several
years . . . .”
Id. at 137-38. Pitzer was concerned by these “inappropriate” statements “seeing
as how the child was sitting just a few feet away from her.” Id. at 137. Father
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 8 of 20
was present, and several times during the conversation, he seemed to be “telling
her to maybe slow down or calm down, not talk about it.” Id. at 138. During
the meeting, one of Mother’s adult daughters called to confirm that Mother
would be babysitting one of her toddler-aged grandsons. Mother “said that she
wanted $5.00 so she could get wine basically because she was helping to watch
the grandchild with [Father].” Id.
[18] Throughout the CHINS case, Mother refused to cooperate with DCS at all.
She also refused to communicate with DCS. Id. at 113. At some point towards
the end of 2016, Child’s Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) reached
out to Mother to schedule a time to meet with Child. When the CASA spoke
with Mother, Mother seemed “upset,” “agitated,” “hostile,” and “aggressive.”
Id. at 142-43. Mother refused to allow the CASA to speak with Child. The
CASA reported back to her supervisor and stated that if she had to go out to the
family’s home at some point, “considering the hostility that was given towards
me I didn’t feel comfortable going out there by myself.” Id. at 144.
[19] The factfinding hearing on the CHINS petition occurred on December 14,
2016, and February 2, 2017. Before the factfinding, Mother had participated in
a substance abuse assessment, but the results of that assessment were not
available at the time of the hearing. On April 28, 2017, the trial court found
Child to be a CHINS, explicitly noting that it found all of DCS’s witnesses to be
credible. The trial court ultimately concluded as follows:
[Child’s] physical condition is seriously endangered as a result of
the inability, refusal or neglect of the child’s parents to provide
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 9 of 20
[Child] a sober caregiver when Father is out of town overnight.
[Child’s] physical health was seriously endangered due to Mother
operating a vehicle while intoxicated with [Child] in the car.
[Child] needs a sober caregiver to provide her supervision.
Mother’s continued use of alcohol and her lack of cooperation
convinces the Court that Mother is unlikely to accept services for
alcohol abuse without the coercive intervention of the Court.
Appealed Order p. 6-7. The parents now appeal.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[20] Parents first argue that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
order finding Child to be a CHINS. 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.R., 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
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 10 of 20
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).
[21] Here, DCS alleged that the child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code
section 31-34-1-1,2 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.
Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to require “three basic
elements: that the parent’s actions or inactions have seriously endangered the
2
DCS also alleged that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2, but the trial court
found a CHINS based on section 1 and neither party makes any argument regarding section 2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 11 of 20
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).
II. CHINS Finding 3
A. Findings of Fact
[22] The parents first argue that the evidence does not support many of the trial
court’s findings of fact. We will consider each in turn. See Appealed Order p.
3-6.
“Officer Cunningham tried to get Mother to cooperate and get a family
member to come and pick up the children. Mother was very uncooperative.”
[23] The parents argue that while Mother was initially unwilling to provide contact
information, her adult daughters were contacted and picked up the children at
the scene. Officer Cunningham testified that Mother was very uncooperative
and verbally abusive, refusing to provide phone numbers for her adult daughters
or allow the officer to look in her phone to find that information. While the
adult daughters did eventually arrive at the scene, there is no evidence regarding
how they were contacted. Throughout the encounter, Mother was agitated,
loud, and verbally abusive, even physically assaulting Officer Howell at the
3
At times, both parties cite to and rely on evidence that came into the record at the dispositional hearing
following the CHINS adjudication. As that evidence was not in the record at the time the trial court
adjudicated Child to be a CHINS, we will not consider it.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 12 of 20
hospital. We find that the evidence supports this finding of fact regarding
Mother’s uncooperative behavior.
“When Officer Love arrived with FCM Graham, Officer Love noted that
Mother appeared intoxicated.”
[24] Initially, we note that it was Officer Wright who testified that Mother appeared
intoxicated at a home visit, but this is merely an inadvertent error on the trial
court’s part that does not affect the substance of the finding. Mother argues that
she submitted to a mouth swab test that day that showed a blood alcohol
content of .04-.08, which does not meet the legal level of intoxication for the
purpose of operating a vehicle. We agree with the State, however, that whether
she meets the legal limit for being arrested for OWI does not mean that she did
not appear—or was not—intoxicated. Officer Wright stated that Mother was
acting “angry” and “agitated” and admitted that she had been drinking that
day. Tr. p. 91. We find that the evidence supports this finding of fact.
“FCM made several attempts to talk with Mother and went to the home three
times before she was able to talk with Mother.”
[25] The parents argue that it is “unclear whether it is unusual for DCS to have
difficulty making contact with parents after a complaint had been filed” and
that there “was no proof that the [parents] were avoiding contact with DCS.”
Appellants’ Br. p. 14. This argument in no way undercuts the trial court’s
finding, however, which makes a factually accurate statement, based on
Graham’s testimony, that Graham had to make several attempts at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 13 of 20
communication before she was finally able to talk with the parents. The
evidence supports this finding of fact.
“Father was very calm. Father did not appear concerned with [Child’s]
safety.”
“When FCM Graham talked with Father on the phone, he did not understand
why he needed to be involved. Father did not show great concern for [Child].”
[26] The parents contend that there is evidence in the record showing that Father
was, in fact, concerned for Child. But this is merely a request that we reweigh
the evidence, which we will not do. The record reveals that Graham testified
that Father “was very calm,” “he wasn’t really expressing deep concern for his
child,” and stated that he had “no concern” about the fact that Mother was
arrested for OWI while Child was in the car. Tr. p. 108, 121. The evidence
supports these findings of fact.
“Deputy Love observed that Mother did not take the situation seriously and
she seemed more concerned about male strippers than [Child].”
[27] The parents argue that this was merely an “ill-advised attempt at humor.”
Appellants’ Br. p. 16. But Deputy Love did, in fact, testify that Mother “was
more concerned about having male strippers from the Chippendales come out
and do welfare checks on her . . . as opposed to a case worker or law
enforcement or somebody else in the safety plan” and that Mother “was more
concerned about trying to figure out [the term Chippendales] than paying
attention to anything else that was going on.” Tr. p. 99-100. The trial court
explicitly found Deputy Love to be a credible witness. We decline the parents’
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 14 of 20
request to reweigh this evidence or assess witness credibility—the evidence
supports this finding of fact.
“DCS developed a safety plan with Mother’s adult daughter . . . , who agreed
to go and check on [Child] each morning and afternoon on the days Father is
out of town.”
[28] The parents argue that they were also involved in developing and implementing
the safety plan. Even so, the record establishes that no such safety plan had
been developed or implemented before DCS became involved with this family.
Until DCS stepped in, no one was making sure that Mother was sober while
Child was in her care. We find the evidence supports this finding of fact.
“Mother has been uncooperative with [Child’s CASA]. Court finds [the
CASA] credible.”
[29] The parents argue that Mother was misinformed about who the CASA was.
But there is no evidence in the record supporting that assertion. The CASA
testified that Mother was “upset,” “agitated,” “hostile,” and “aggressive” and
that Mother refused to allow the CASA to speak with Child. Tr. p. 142-43.
The CASA was so alarmed by Mother’s behavior that she told her supervisor
she was not comfortable going to the family’s home unaccompanied. The
evidence supports this finding of fact.
B. Conclusion that Child is a CHINS
[30] Finally, the parents argue that the evidence in the record does not support the
trial court’s conclusion that Child is a CHINS. As noted above, our Supreme
Court has stated that to establish a CHINS, DCS must prove “three basic
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 15 of 20
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.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.
1. Serious Endangerment
[31] The parents concede that the State proved this element of the CHINS statute by
offering evidence regarding Mother’s act of driving while intoxicated with Child
in the car. Appellants’ Br. p. 19.
2. Child’s Needs Unmet
[32] It is undisputed that Mother is Child’s primary caregiver most of the time.
Father is nearly always out of town during the weekdays and weeknights. It is
also undisputed that Mother drinks wine every day. It is true that consuming
alcohol is not illegal and that consuming alcohol while having children in one’s
care is not illegal. It is certainly the case that not every child whose parents
drink alcohol is a CHINS. Graham explained why the circumstances present in
this case, in particular, are troubling:
[Mother’s] drinking, especially [in] this case where she was
pulled over, was excessive and she had put her daughter as well
as her granddaughter in danger by driving with them and she
admitted to me that she drinks every day and because of
[Father’s] travel for work he’s not there as a sober caregiver, a
sober adult in the home and with [Mother] admitting that she
drinks every day I can’t—we did not feel that it was a safe
location for [Child] to be without a sober caregiver.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 16 of 20
Tr. p. 117-18. On one occasion, Graham and an officer went to the family’s
home in the early afternoon, and Mother had already had three glasses of wine
and a blood alcohol content of .04-.08. The officer deduced, based on her
behavior, that she was intoxicated. Child told Graham that she knows Mother
drinks wine and stated that “she acts different when she drinks wine.” Id. at
126.
[33] Furthermore, Father stated that Mother may have bipolar disorder, but there is
no evidence that she has ever received any mental health treatment or
medication for this condition. Whether because of alcohol use, mental health
issues, or other unknown factors, Mother displayed a pattern of concerning,
obstreperous, and unstable behavior throughout the CHINS case:
• On the night Mother was arrested for OWI, she went to the emergency
room and displayed such concerning behavior that a social worker was
contacted. Mother was angry, aggressive, and upset, accusing hospital
employees of stealing a bank statement.
• After being pulled over by law enforcement, Mother was uncooperative,
loud, verbally abusive, and combative. She even physically struck one of
the officers.
• In August 2016, Graham went to the family’s home. She found Mother
to be agitated, angry, and disruptive. Mother slammed the door at one
point.
• In October 2016, Graham and Officer Wright went to the home. Officer
Wright believed Mother was intoxicated based on her angry and agitated
behavior. Mother, with Child next to her, said, “oh look at me, I’m so
drunk[.]” Tr. p. 92.
• On another occasion, Graham and Corporal Love went to the home.
Corporal Love did not believe that Mother was taking the situation
seriously, stating that she was more focused on making jokes about the
Chippendales than making sure her child was safe.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 17 of 20
• In December 2016, Pitzer went to the residence. While she was there,
with Child sitting a few feet away, Mother was unable to focus on the
conversation with Pitzer about the case, instead making inappropriate
and meandering statements about maternal grandmother, about pressure
to abort Child when Mother was pregnant, and about how she had not
had sex for several years. When Mother’s adult child called to ask her to
babysit for a grandchild, Mother demanded $5 so she could buy wine.
• Near the end of 2016, the CASA contacted Mother to find a time to meet
with Child. Mother was agitated, hostile, and aggressive, causing the
CASA to feel unsafe going to the home by herself.
In the face of all this troubling behavior, Father was absent and unconcerned.
He did not understand why he had to be involved with the CHINS case and
stated that he was not concerned about Mother’s alcohol consumption or the
fact that she was arrested for OWI with Child in the vehicle. He had taken no
action to ensure Child’s safety while he was traveling for work.
[34] It may well be that any one of these instances would not have been enough to
rise to the level of a CHINS case, but in the aggregate, this evidence shows that
Child did not have a sober, stable, and appropriate caregiver to care for her. In
other words, the trial court did not err by concluding that DCS established that
Child’s need for appropriate supervision was not being met.
3. State Coercion
[35] Finally, the parents argue that DCS failed to prove that the coercive
intervention of the court is needed because (1) they helped to develop the safety
plan and were in compliance with that plan during the CHINS case, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 18 of 20
(2) Mother agreed to, and did, participate in a substance abuse assessment
during the CHINS case.
[36] While we applaud the parents for cooperating at that minimal level, we cannot
conclude that the rest of the evidence in the record supports their contention
that they were compliant with DCS and otherwise managing the situation on
their own. First, the parents failed to respond to Graham’s initial attempts at
communication (including voicemails, three visits to their residence, and a letter
left at their residence) for nearly two weeks. Second, for a lengthy period of
time during the CHINS case, Mother refused to communicate with Graham at
all. Third, Mother’s behavior throughout this case, including her behavior with
law enforcement officers, hospital personnel, jail staff, the CASA, and DCS
employees, was hostile, aggressive, and accusatory. Fourth, while Mother did
participate in a substance abuse assessment, she has taken no steps to address
her substance abuse issues (which have lasted for years, if her past OWI
conviction is any indicator). Fifth, she has likewise taken no steps to address
her mental health issues. Sixth, Father is not concerned about the situation and
has showed no initiative in attempting to solve these problems without the
intervention of the State. Seventh, the safety plan put in place, which entails
one of their adult daughters stopping by the house twice a day, is merely a
short-term solution to ensure Child’s safety, but does not address the underlying
problems, which neither Mother nor Father have seen fit to address until DCS
got involved. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court did not err
by finding that DCS had proved that the coercive intervention of the court was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 19 of 20
necessary.4 In sum, we find the evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s
adjudication of Child as a CHINS.
[37] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
4
The State includes argument in its brief regarding the trial court’s dispositional order and the services it
ordered parents to complete. Parents make clear in their reply brief, however, that they are not contesting the
services ordered at the dispositional hearing. Consequently, we will not address this issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1706-JC-1325 | November 7, 2017 Page 20 of 20
In Re: A.L., a Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, L.L. (Father) and A.L. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion