FILED Apr 06 2026, 8:38 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana In the Matter of V.K. and T.K. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and A.R. (Mother) Appellant-Respondent
v.
Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
April 6, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-JC-2395 Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court The Honorable Lucy Goffinet, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 62C01-2503-JC-52 62C01-2503-JC-53
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 1 of 22 Opinion by Judge Kenworthy Judges Bradford and Pyle concur.
Kenworthy, Judge.
Case Summary [1] After the trial court adjudicated her two children V.K. and T.K. (collectively,
“Children”) Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”), A.R. (“Mother”) appeals
the trial court’s dispositional order requiring her to submit to random drug
screens and abstain from using alcohol. The Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) contends Mother waived this challenge for failure to object to DCS’s
predispositional report recommendations at the dispositional hearing.
[2] Because Mother waived her argument, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] Mother and T.K., Jr. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) are the parents of V.K.
(born in March 2020) and T.K. (born in February 2022). Father is not a party
to this appeal.
[4] Parents have a history of domestic violence and DCS involvement. Since 2019,
Mother has been named a perpetrator of abuse or neglect in seventeen DCS
investigations, three of which resulted in substantiations and open cases, not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 2 of 22 including the current case. 1 V.K. was first adjudicated a CHINS as an infant in
September 2020 after Parents admitted domestic violence occurred between
them in the home. V.K. was removed from Parents’ care but reunified with
them in July 2021. V.K. was removed and adjudicated a CHINS for the second
time in November 2021, again because of domestic violence between Parents.
During that case, Parents admitted to illegal substance use in the home. While
the second CHINS case was pending, T.K. was born. Although T.K. was
temporarily removed from Parents’ care due to allegations of domestic violence
in the home, the trial court found he was not a CHINS and he returned home in
August 2022. V.K.’s second CHINS case closed in August 2023 when V.K.’s
foster parent was appointed his guardian. But the guardianship over V.K.
terminated in July 2024, and V.K. returned to Parents’ care. Over the four
years these CHINS matters were pending, Parents filed several protective orders
against each other.
[5] In the fall of 2024, DCS investigated reports that Mother and Children were
homeless and sleeping in her car in Perry County. Mother denied the
allegations and produced a lease for a home in Tennessee. In January 2025,
DCS learned from Tennessee authorities Mother was not living at the address
she provided and the residents there had never heard of her. On January 30,
1 Since 2013, Father has been named a perpetrator of abuse or neglect in thirty-two investigations, six of which resulted in substantiations and four open cases. The investigations primarily related to reports of housing instability, domestic violence, drug use, and physical abuse. Father’s DCS history predates Mother’s, but most of the investigations related to Mother also involve Father.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 3 of 22 using a Cannelton, Indiana address, Mother petitioned for a protection order
against Father. She alleged he committed acts of domestic violence against her
between October 2024 and January 2025, including body slamming, choking,
punching, and elbowing her. As part of its investigation, DCS pulled police
dispatch reports which documented “multiple calls about things becoming
physical between” Parents. Tr. Vol. 2 at 79.
[6] On February 2, DCS received a report that Children were living with Mother
and her boyfriend in Troy, Indiana; there was illegal drug use in the home; and
Mother was physically abusing V.K. Mother brought Children to the local
DCS office to meet with an assessment case manager. Mother claimed to be
staying with a friend (not the alleged boyfriend) and permitted the case manager
to see that home. Father was living elsewhere. Mother signed a safety plan but
declined offered services. Two weeks later, DCS received a report that V.K.
was hospitalized because of Mother “allegedly beating [him] up.” Id. at 75.
After that, Mother would not allow DCS to visit Children in her home.
[7] At the end of February, Mother took now five-year-old V.K. to Wellstone
psychiatric hospital, where he was admitted for “behavioral issues,” including
“verbal and physical aggression.” Id. at 17, 108. Physicians prescribed him
medication to manage his symptoms and discharged him after about a week.
He was again admitted to Wellstone in March. Mother declined to sign a
release to permit DCS to access V.K.’s medical records or speak to providers
about his treatment. After his discharge, Mother took V.K. to see a nurse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 4 of 22 practitioner for medication management. The nurse practitioner referred V.K.
to therapy.
[8] DCS filed petitions alleging Children were CHINS. Along with the petitions,
Parents were each served with a summons and notice of rights. The documents
advised Parents they would be informed at the initial hearing (1) of the
dispositional alternatives available to the trial court should Children be
adjudicated CHINS, (2) they may be required to participate in a program of
care, treatment, or rehabilitation for Children, and (3) they may controvert any
allegations made at a dispositional hearing concerning their participation. See
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 33, 160. Parents appeared at the initial hearing, and
the trial court advised them of their rights. See id. at 54. Following an April
status hearing, the trial court ordered Mother to sign releases to permit DCS
access to Children’s medical records, over Mother’s objection.
[9] The CHINS factfinding hearing began on May 22, 2025. At the time, Mother
was pregnant and due to give birth in September. Despite the protective orders
and previous DCS involvement, Mother denied she and Father have a history
of domestic violence or Children witnessed it. She recanted the allegations she
made against Father in the January 30 protection order petition.2 Mother
denied ever being unhoused, explaining she and Children were camping in the
fall. She claimed V.K.’s behavioral struggles stemmed from prior DCS
2 In a separate proceeding, the trial court dismissed the petition on Mother’s motion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 5 of 22 involvement. When asked about illegal drug use, Mother denied self-
medicating with marijuana, explaining in the past she was “buying THCA from
a gas station” which is “legally allowed to be bought in Indiana” but she no
longer uses it. Tr. Vol. 2 at 32. DCS introduced into evidence Wellstone
records in which Mother reported to V.K.’s treating physician “she smoked
marijuana and nicotine at the time of [V.K.’s] admission [in February 2025] as
her appetite was very low and it helped her with her issues.” Exhibit Vol. 2 at
134. 3 DCS also introduced records of the prior CHINS cases containing
allegations Mother used marijuana and kratom; allegations Father used
methamphetamine, marijuana, and medications without a prescription; and
Parents’ 2021 admission to illegal substance use in the home. 4 Due to time
constraints, the court continued the hearing until June.
[10] A week later, on May 29, a bystander called police to Mother’s residence after
he saw Mother drive erratically, park in front of her house, get out of the car,
reach through the open back car window, and start “swinging” and “hitting”
into the backseat. Tr. Vol. 2 at 99. The witness then watched as Mother
“yanked” V.K. out of the car, “smacked” him, “picked [him] up in a choke
hold,” “struck him in the face,” then took him inside. Id. at 99, 101. The
3 A single exhibit volume appears in the record of this case; however, it begins with a continuation of Petitioner’s Exhibit 5 (V.K.’s medical records). Apparent from the contents, the trial court clerk’s submission is the second volume of what should be a two-volume exhibit bundle, and we refer to it as Exhibit Volume 2. 4 These records appear in Exhibit Volume 1. We have obtained the missing exhibit volume through the Odyssey Case Management System.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 6 of 22 bystander heard V.K. screaming. When police arrived, V.K. had “redness” and
“minor discoloration” or bruising on his face and appeared to have been crying.
Id. at 91–92. During the incident, three-year-old T.K. was in the car, crying and
“in emotional distress.” Id. at 94. DCS removed V.K. from Mother’s care and
placed him with Father. T.K. remained with Mother.
[11] The factfinding resumed on August 5. V.K.’s clinical therapist testified he had
a “working diagnosis” of “adjustment disorder with a mixed disturbance of
emotions and conduct[.]” Id. at 107–08. The therapist had been unable to
make a more specific diagnosis because V.K. attended only one session in June
and one in July, falling short of the recommended weekly schedule. The
Family Case Manager (“FCM”) explained she had offered Parents parenting
assessments and family preservation services to help them learn strategies to
manage V.K.’s behavior, but neither agreed to participate. The FCM was
concerned Parents would not provide therapy for V.K. absent a court order.
The trial court adjudicated Children CHINS on August 13, finding, in pertinent
part:
5. [V.K.] has adjustment disorder, as diagnosed by his therapist[.]
***
7. [Mother] physically abused [V.K.] in the presence of [T.K.].
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 7 of 22 9. The parents have filed at least 6 protective orders against each other in the last 5 years.
10. Physical abuse and domestic violence [are] occurring in the home.
11. The children have witnessed domestic violence in the home.
12. While the children are receiving medical treatment, the parents are unwilling to seek adequate therapeutic services.
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 100–01. On August 13, DCS filed a predispositional
report recommending, among other things, the trial court order Mother to
submit to random drug screens and abstain from illegal controlled substance
and alcohol use. See id. at 94.
[12] The trial court held a dispositional hearing on August 26, at which Mother and
her counsel appeared. During the hearing, the DCS attorney requested the trial
court “accept the findings and recommendations contained in this
[predispositional] report, . . . adopt it as a dispositional decree[,] and order the
parents to participate accordingly.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 166–67. When asked for
argument, Mother’s counsel stated, “We don’t have any changes or
modifications to the report, Your Honor.” Id. 5 The trial court adopted the
predispositional report and accepted DCS’s findings and recommendations. In
5 Father’s counsel objected to the recommendation he engage in a psychological evaluation on the grounds “we don’t believe it was reasonably based on the evidence before this Court.” Id. The trial court ordered him to undergo the evaluation over his objection.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 8 of 22 its dispositional order, the trial court ordered Mother to submit to random drug
screens and to refrain from using illegal drugs or alcohol, among other
requirements.
Mother waived her challenge to the trial court’s dispositional orders concerning parental participation. [13] Mother does not appeal the determination Children are CHINS, but rather the
requirements in the trial court’s dispositional order she abstain from alcohol use
and submit to random drug screens. She argues the evidence presented and the
trial court’s findings do not support such requirements.
[14] Before addressing the merits of Mother’s argument, DCS contends Mother’s
issue is waived for failure to object to DCS’s predispositional report
recommendations at the dispositional hearing. Put differently, DCS believes
Mother cannot dispute for the first time on appeal the trial court’s dispositional
orders where the court adopted the findings and recommendations DCS
proposed in its predispositional report.
[15] After a child is adjudicated a CHINS, the trial court must order DCS to prepare
a predispositional report containing a “statement of the needs of the child for
care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement” and a “recommendation for the
care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-34-
18-1(a) (2008). The person preparing the report shall also consider “the
necessity, nature, and extent of the participation by a parent” in the child’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 9 of 22 program of care. I.C. § 31-34-18-2(a) (2019). 6 Parents may prepare and submit
their own reports and recommendations for the trial court’s consideration. See
I.C. § 31-34-18-1(b).
[16] Not more than thirty days after the CHINS adjudication, the trial court shall
hold a dispositional hearing to consider, among other things, the alternatives for
the child’s care and the degree of the parent’s participation. I.C. § 31-34-19-
1(a)(1)–(2) (2015). DCS must provide the child’s parent with notice of the
hearing, I.C. § 31-34-19-1.3(a) (2007), and the predispositional report must be
made available to the parent’s attorney at least forty-eight hours in advance,
I.C. § 31-34-18-6 (2018).
[17] At the hearing, a parent has a due process right to be heard and make
recommendations to the trial court. I.C. § 31-34-19-1.3(b) (“The court shall: (1)
provide a person required to be notified . . . an opportunity to be heard; and (2)
allow a person described in subdivision (1) to make recommendations to the
court; at the dispositional hearing.”). If a parent makes recommendations, the
trial court must consider them before entering its dispositional decree. I.C. §
31-34-19-6.1(a)(2) (2018). A predispositional report may be admitted into
evidence at the hearing to the extent it contains “evidence of probative value
even if the report would otherwise be excluded.” I.C. 31-34-19-2(a) (2007); see
6 We refer throughout this opinion to a “parent” because of the facts of this case, but generally these rights also apply to guardians and custodians. At times, the CHINS statutes extend certain rights and responsibilities to other participants, such as the child, guardians ad litem, court appointed special advocates, foster parents, the trial court, and counsel.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 10 of 22 also In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1259 (Ind. 2012) (“At a dispositional hearing,
the juvenile court can admit the dispositional report of DCS even if it includes
hearsay.”). But the child’s parent “shall be given a fair opportunity to
controvert any part of the report admitted into evidence.” I.C. 31-34-19-2(c).
[18] After the hearing, the trial court enters its dispositional decree. I.C. § 31-34-19-
6.1. As part of the decree, a trial court may order the child’s parent to complete
reunification services recommended by DCS and approved by the court. I.C. §
31-34-20-1(a)(6) (2025); I.C. § 31-34-20-3(a) (2022). 7
[19] In this case, the record shows the written summons and notice of rights advised
Mother that she may be required to participate in a program of care, treatment,
or rehabilitation for Children, and she may controvert any allegations made at a
dispositional hearing concerning her participation. Then, at the initial hearing,
the trial court advised Mother of these rights in person. After Children were
adjudicated CHINS, DCS provided Mother with notice of the dispositional
hearing. DCS filed its predispositional report thirteen days before the hearing
7 It is common for a trial court to adopt DCS’s findings and recommendations in the dispositional decree; in fact, there is a statutory presumption in favor of DCS’s recommendations. See In re T.S., 906 N.E.2d 801, 804 (Ind. 2009). If during the dispositional hearing the trial court disagrees with DCS’s recommendations as submitted or wants DCS to consider other parties’ or the court’s recommendations, it must continue the hearing to permit DCS to review the other recommendations and file a supplemental report. I.C. § 31-34-19- 6.1(c). The trial court “shall accept” DCS’s final recommendations, unless the court finds a recommendation is “unreasonable, based on the facts and circumstances of the case” or “contrary to the welfare and best interests of the child.” I.C. § 31-34-19-6.1(d) (emphasis added). In its written findings, the trial court must then “specifically state” why the court is not accepting DCS’s final recommendations. I.C. § 31-34-19-6.1(e). Based on this statutory scheme, our Supreme Court has acknowledged there is a “statutory presumption favoring DCS’s final recommendations,” and trial courts “lack unfettered discretion to make a contrary decision” to DCS’s recommendations. T.S., 906 N.E.2d at 804.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 11 of 22 date, and the report included DCS’s recommendations Mother participate in
random drug screens and abstain from illegal controlled substance and alcohol
use. Mother appeared in person and with counsel at the dispositional hearing.
And as she acknowledges on appeal, the trial court gave her an opportunity to
object to DCS’s predispositional report recommendations, and her counsel
stated she had no changes to propose. The trial court then adopted DCS’s
recommendations in its dispositional decree. Because Mother had notice, an
opportunity to be heard, and declined to object to DCS’s proposal, we hold that
under these circumstances, Mother waived any challenge to the trial court’s
dispositional orders adopting DCS’s recommended parental participation
services and conditions.
[20] Still, Mother contends she did not waive this issue because “appealing
dispositional requirements [is] similar to appealing probation conditions as part
of a criminal sentence, which need not be objected to in the lower court to raise
the first time on appeal.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. Mother’s argument relies on a
recent opinion of this Court, In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025),
trans. denied.
[21] In B.W., DCS also claimed a mother had waived her challenge to requirements
imposed in a dispositional order for failing to object to DCS’s predispositional
report recommendations in the trial court. Id. at 751. On appeal, the B.W.
Court declined to apply waiver, first noting the mother had tendered her own
proposed dispositional order before the hearing. Id. The panel also noted the
trial court adopted DCS’s recommendations as proposed without discussion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 12 of 22 and afforded the mother no opportunity to object at the hearing. Id. Finally,
the B.W. Court “liken[ed] the appeal of the dispositional requirements to an
appeal of probation conditions or a criminal sentence, which we may review
without insisting that the claim first be presented to the trial judge.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For these reasons, this Court
reviewed the mother’s challenges to the dispositional requirements on the
merits.
[22] We disagree with Mother’s argument, supported by B.W., analogizing parental
participation orders to probation conditions. These two types of orders serve
fundamentally different purposes and interests.
[23] Probation is a criminal sanction. Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864, 873 (Ind.
2013). Criminal defendants who receive probation agree to accept conditions
upon their behavior in lieu of imprisonment. Id. The conditions imposed must
be reasonably related to the defendant’s treatment and the protection of public
safety. Id.
[24] On the other hand, CHINS proceedings are civil actions. In re Eq.W., 124
N.E.3d 1201, 1209 (Ind. 2019). The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure and
additional procedural safeguards created by the legislature and courts govern
CHINS proceedings. Id. at 1209–10. The “resolution of a juvenile proceeding
focuses on the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or innocence as in a
criminal proceeding.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). A CHINS
adjudication is simply a determination that a child is in need of services, and it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 13 of 22 focuses on the condition of the child without establishing parental culpability.
Id. at 105. As often said, the purpose of a CHINS adjudication “is to protect
children, not punish parents.” Id. at 106. After a CHINS adjudication, a parent
may be required to participate in the child’s program of care, treatment, or
rehabilitation, but the program focuses on addressing the child’s needs. See I.C.
§ 31-34-20-1(a)(6) (providing that the trial court “shall consider the child’s
health, welfare, and safety as the paramount concern” when ordering a parent
to participate in appropriate reunification services). Because probation
conditions and CHINS dispositional orders address fundamentally distinct
goals, we decline to adopt B.W.’s reasoning.
[25] B.W. is also distinguishable for two reasons. First, unlike Mother here, the
mother in B.W. put forth her own proposal for the child’s care, as permitted by
statute. See I.C. § 31-34-18-1(b) (providing a child’s parent may prepare an
alternative report for the trial court’s consideration); I.C. § 31-34-19-6.1
(providing a trial court must consider a parent’s recommendations). The B.W.
mother’s alternative report was functionally an objection, or at least sufficiently
signaled disagreement with DCS’s recommendations to preserve the issue for
appeal. Second, the trial court in B.W. apparently adopted DCS’s
recommendations in court without giving the mother an opportunity to object,
contrary to the statute’s due process protections. See I.C. § 31-34-19-1.3(b) (a
parent whose child has been adjudicated a CHINS is entitled to be heard at the
dispositional hearing); I.C. 31-34-19-2(c) (a child’s parent “shall be given a fair
opportunity to controvert any part of the [predispositional] report admitted into
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 14 of 22 evidence”). If the court did not permit the mother in B.W. to be heard, she
cannot have waived her objection.
[26] In summary, the mother in B.W. either objected by submitting her own report,
or the trial court denied her an opportunity to object at the hearing. In either
case, the issue was not waived. Unlike the parent in B.W., Mother submitted
no recommendations of her own before the dispositional hearing and, after
given the opportunity to object, stated in open court she had no concerns with
DCS’s proposal. As compared to those in B.W., the circumstances here present
a much stronger case for waiver.
[27] Indeed, we generally prefer to address cases on the merits rather than decide
them on procedural grounds such as waiver. See Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d at 1214.
But our Supreme Court has previously held a parent can waive an issue in a
CHINS proceeding by failing to bring it to the trial court’s attention. See id. at
1212–13 (holding a parent appealing a CHINS adjudication waived the issue of
res judicata by failing to raise it in the trial court); cf. In re N.G., 51 N.E.3d 1167,
1173 (Ind. 2016) (in the context of termination of parental rights, holding a
parent may waive a constitutional claim, including a claimed violation of due
process rights, by raising it for the first time on appeal). And we note that in at
least two published cases in which Indiana appellate courts have reversed a trial
court’s dispositional orders concerning parental participation, the disputed
recommendations were known or objected to in the court below. See, e.g., K.D.,
962 N.E.2d at 1258 (noting the stepfather “constantly denied” throughout the
proceedings he needed sex offender treatment); In re A.C., 905 N.E.2d 456, 464
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 15 of 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (in a case where a mother disputed the trial court’s
dispositional order she participate in and complete a drug and alcohol
assessment, noting the trial court’s findings of fact stated the mother disagreed
she needed any substance evaluation services).
[28] Moreover, this Court has often observed a “parent may not sit idly by without
asserting a need or desire for services and then successfully argue that he was
denied services to assist him with his parenting.” In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039,
1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. Similarly,
when a statute provides a parent with the right to notice of DCS’s
recommendations and an opportunity to controvert them, a parent should not
be permitted to sit silently then later argue she should not have been required to
engage in services in the first place. See Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d at 1213 (noting
where the statute provided parents the right to challenge the elements DCS
must prove to establish a child is a CHINS, the mother “had at least some
cognizable responsibility” to challenge the CHINS petition before the trial
court).
[29] To avoid waiver generally, a party must raise an issue in the trial court before
seeking an opinion on appeal. Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322
(Ind. 2004). The policy reasons behind this requirement include “preservation
of judicial resources, opportunity for full development of the record, utilization
of trial court fact-finding expertise, and assurance of a claim being tested by the
adversary process[.]” Id. In the context of children adjudicated CHINS, our
legislature has also prioritized timely provision of services and permanency.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 16 of 22 See, e.g., I.C. § 31-34-19-1(a) (requiring a dispositional hearing to be completed
within thirty days of the CHINS finding). A parent who objects to DCS’s
recommendations gives the trial court an opportunity to correct any errors—
before a parent is ordered to comply with the recommended conditions and
services. And a timely objection gives the parties opportunity to develop the
record for appeal as to why the evidence does—or does not—warrant
imposition of the disputed recommendation or service. Requiring a parent to
object in the trial court to DCS’s predispositional report recommendations to
preserve the issue for appeal therefore best advances these important policy
considerations.
[30] Mother had a responsibility to challenge before the trial court any of DCS’s
recommendations she believed were unsupported by the evidence,
inappropriate, or otherwise unnecessary. Mother did not do so, and
accordingly her challenge to the dispositional requirements is waived.
Waiver notwithstanding, the trial court did not err in imposing substance use requirements on Mother. [31] Waiver notwithstanding, we turn to the substance of Mother’s argument: that
the trial court erred in ordering her to submit to random drug screens and
refrain from alcohol use. Mother contends the two challenged requirements
lack evidentiary support.
[32] After a child is adjudicated a CHINS, a trial court may order the child’s parent
to complete reunification services recommended by DCS and approved by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 17 of 22 court. I.C. § 31-34-20-1(a)(6). Such services may include ordering the parent to
do the following:
(1) Obtain assistance in fulfilling the obligations as a parent[.]
(2) Provide specified care, treatment, or supervision for the child.
(3) Work with a person providing care, treatment, or rehabilitation for the child.
(4) Participate in a program operated by or through the department of correction.
(5) Participate in a mental health or addiction treatment program.
I.C. § 31-34-20-3(a). When considering which reunification services are
appropriate, the trial court shall consider:
(A) any failure of the parent . . . to substantially participate in previously ordered services or substantially comply with a previous case plan;
(B) any history of the parent . . . abusing the child while the parent . . . was under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
(C) any history of the parent . . . directing violent behavior at the child or at a member of the child’s immediate family;
(D) whether the parent . . . continues to reside with an individual who abused the child;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 18 of 22 (E) any patterns of behavior by the parent . . . that have exposed the child to repeated abuse;
(F) any testimony by a competent professional that remediation of the parent’s . . . behavior is unlikely to be successful; and
(G) whether the parent . . . has expressed an interest in reunification with the child.
I.C. § 31-34-20-1(a)(6). “In determining the appropriateness of the reunification
services, the court shall consider the child’s health, welfare, and safety as the
paramount concern.” Id.
[33] Our Supreme Court has previously held a trial court has “broad discretion in
determining [the] programs and services in which a parent is required to
participate,” but the requirements “must relate to some behavior or
circumstances” revealed by the evidence. K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1258 (citing
A.C., 905 N.E.2d at 464). A trial court should not force “unnecessary
requirements” upon parents whose children have been adjudicated CHINS, id.,
and should avoid adopting “mere boilerplate language” to impose requirements
lacking evidentiary support. See, e.g, A.C., 905 N.E.2d at 464. At the same
time, predispositional report recommendations which require parents to provide
for children’s basic needs—such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care,
education, or supervision—are routine but appropriate to include in
dispositional orders as part of the child’s program of care, treatment, or
rehabilitation when a child is adjudicated a CHINS under the general neglect
statute. See I.C. § 31-34-1-1 (2019). Components of the dispositional order
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 19 of 22 which “seek to ensure stability in the home to which the Children may be
returned” are “both appropriate and necessary.” B.W., 266 N.E.3d at 754
(Mathias, J., dissenting).
[34] Here, DCS introduced prior CHINS case records showing this family has a
history of DCS involvement stemming primarily from domestic violence
between Mother and Father. In a prior CHINS case, Parents admitted there
was illegal substance use in the home, including marijuana, kratom,
methamphetamine, and prescription drugs. In the current case, DCS
investigated several reports related to Mother and Children, including
“allegations of substance use with [Mother] and her alleged boyfriend at the
time.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 72. DCS introduced medical records showing Mother told
V.K.’s health care provider she was using marijuana when V.K. was admitted
to Wellstone in February 2025 to cope with “her issues” and poor appetite.
Exhibit Vol. 2 at 134. During her testimony, Mother explained she has used a
marijuana-adjacent substance, THCA.
[35] Although Mother denied any current illegal substance use, the trial court was
not required to credit her testimony. See K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253 (noting that
when we review CHINS matters, we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge
the credibility of the witnesses”). And in this case, Mother’s testimony at the
factfinding hearing was not especially credible. For example, she denied she
and Father engaged in domestic violence, despite substantial evidence to the
contrary, including the prior CHINS cases, multiple protective orders between
Parents, recent police dispatch reports, and the allegations in Mother’s most
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 20 of 22 recent protective order petition. And Mother denied physically abusing V.K.
on May 29, despite credible eyewitness testimony describing the abuse. The
trial court reasonably could have concluded Mother was not being forthcoming
about her current substance use.
[36] This is not a case in which a CHINS adjudication was based on evidence of
sporadic drug or alcohol use without evidence of child endangerment. See, e.g.,
In re D.S., 150 N.E.3d 292, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (collecting CHINS cases
concerning drug use). Here, the trial court adjudicated Children CHINS
because of domestic violence, physical abuse, and Parents’ unwillingness to
ensure adequate therapeutic services for V.K. without court intervention—none
of which Mother challenges on appeal. The trial court was aware of the history
and allegations of substance use in Mother’s home. DCS introduced evidence
of those circumstances as well as Mother’s admission to a healthcare provider
that she was using marijuana as recently as February 2025.
[37] The CHINS statutes clearly state a trial court may consider a parent’s history
and patterns of behavior when ordering reunification services. I.C. § 31-34-20-
1(a)(6); see also Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d at 1211 (observing “past acts by parents can
be relevant to new CHINS filings involving the same parents and children”).
When a parent abuses drugs, she endangers her children in a variety of ways.
In re D.L., 814 N.E.2d 1022, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Children
in this case are of tender age, and V.K. has significant mental health needs and
behavioral challenges. There is a long history of domestic violence and
instability resulting in Children’s endangerment, all against a backdrop of illicit
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 21 of 22 drug use. The State has an interest in ensuring Children remain in, or return
to, a stable home environment with sober caregivers. There was sufficient
evidence of Mother’s historical and current substance use in the record to
support the trial court’s orders imposing requirements on Mother related to it.
[38] The trial court did not err, or abuse its discretion, in ordering Mother to submit
to random drug screens and refrain from alcohol and illegal substance use.
Conclusion [39] Mother waived her challenge to the dispositional requirements. Waiver
notwithstanding, sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s dispositional
orders.
[40] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Cara Schaefer Wieneke Wieneke Law Office, LLC Brooklyn, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Katherine A. Cornelius Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-2395 | April 6, 2026 Page 22 of 22