FILED Feb 09 2026, 9:13 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana In the Matter of S.V., Minor Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services; J.J. (Mother) and B.M. (Stepfather), Appellants-Respondents
v.
Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
and
Kids’ Voice of Indiana,
Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem
February 9, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-JC-1178 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 1 of 21 The Honorable A. Richard M. Blaiklock, Judge The Honorable Tara Y. Melton, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D11-2405-JC-4576
Opinion by Chief Judge Tavitas Judges Bailey and Kenworthy concur.
Tavitas, Chief Judge.
Case Summary [1] In this consolidated appeal, J.J. (“Mother”) and B.M. (“Stepfather”) 1 appeal the
trial court’s determination that S.V. (“Child”) is a child in need of services
(“CHINS”) under both Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and 31-34-1-2 due to
medical child abuse. On appeal, Mother and Stepfather argue that the evidence
is insufficient to sustain the trial court’s determinations. The evidence,
however, demonstrated that Mother exaggerated or fabricated symptoms,
which resulted in Child being subjected to extensive unnecessary medical care.
We conclude that the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we affirm.
1 It is unclear from the record whether Mother and Stepfather are married, but we will refer to B.M. as Stepfather for clarity. Stepfather has been part of Child’s life since she was born.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 2 of 21 Issue [2] Mother and Stepfather each raise one issue, which we consolidate and restate as
whether the trial court’s determination that Child is a CHINS is clearly
erroneous.
Facts [3] Child was born in July 2017 to Mother and J.V. 2 at thirty-six weeks gestation.
Child has received a significant amount of medical treatment and numerous
surgeries in her short lifetime.
[4] Child experienced early feeding difficulties. When Child was seven weeks old,
a swallowing study was performed. A nasogastric tube (“NG tube”) 3 was
placed to provide nutrition to Child. When Child was seven months old, she
underwent surgery to place a gastrostomy tube (“G tube”)4, which fed Child
directly into her stomach. Child, when approaching the age of three,
underwent a procedure to place a gastrojejunostomy tube (“GJ tube”) 5 in lieu of
the G tube.
2 J.V. does not participate in this appeal. 3 An NG tube is a tube inserted through the nose, down the throat, and into the stomach for delivering nutrition. 4 A G tube is a tube that provides nutrition directly into the stomach. 5 A GJ tube is a tube that provides nutrition directly into the small intestine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 3 of 21 [5] Based upon Mother’s reports regarding Child’s medical symptoms, Child was
evaluated for multiple medical conditions over the next several years, including:
autism; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”); cerebral palsy; spina
bifida occulta; Chiari malformation 6; Crouzon syndrome 7; sleep apnea and
chronic breathing issues; dysphagia 8; tracheomalacia 9; laryngomalacia 10;
dysmotility of the esophagus 11; mild bronchomalacia, 12 which was diagnosed
through a bronchoscopy procedure; chronic constipation, although a colonic
motility study was normal; heart murmur, chest pain, and fast heart rates; cystic
fibrosis; asthma; “vacant seizures,” Tr. Vol. III p. 168; neurogenic bladder 13;
and hypermobility of her joints. Child was born with a “genetic variant” that
can be associated with Crouzon syndrome; however, Child did not exhibit the
clinical features of Crouzon syndrome, and doctors ruled out Crouzon
syndrome. Tr. Vol. II p. 85.
6 Chiari malformation occurs when part of the skull is too small or misshapen and brain tissue is pressed into the spinal cord. 7 Crouzon syndrome is a genetic condition that causes cranial abnormalities. 8 Dysphagia involves difficulty chewing or swallowing. 9 Tracheomalacia is a defect of the trachea that causes noisy breathing or trouble breathing. 10 Laryngomalacia is a defect of the voice box that causes noisy breathing or trouble breathing. 11 Dysmotility of the esophagus is a defect of the esophagus that causes swallowing difficulties. 12 Bronchomalacia is a condition in which the cartilage of the bronchi is weak, causing noisy breathing or wheezing. 13 Neurogenic bladder is a bladder condition caused by nerve issues.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 4 of 21 [6] Child underwent multiple surgeries, including surgery for occult tethered spinal
cord 14 in 2021 based upon Mother’s reports of Child’s urinary symptoms, gait
issues, and toe walking; two surgeries for the repair of a type 1 mild laryngeal
cleft in 2022, although such clefts are typically managed medically rather than
surgically; placement of a cecostomy tube 15 in 2023 because, according to
Mother, the medications were ineffective to resolve Child’s constipation; and
two tonsil/adenoid removal surgeries for sleep apnea. During this time,
Mother was a paid caregiver for Child. Mother also created a GoFundMe
account because she was unable to work while caring for Child.
[7] Child has amassed a medical record of over 18,000 pages with treatment at
Riley Children’s Hospital, Peyton Manning Children’s Hospital (“PMCH”) in
Indianapolis, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. Dr. Elizabeth Kramer, a
pediatric pulmonologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, began treating Child
after Mother reported severe and persistent issues of sleep apnea, chronic
coughing, aspiration of food and drinks, and asthma. During Dr. Kramer’s first
examination of Child, she heard a faint wheeze when she listened to Child’s
lungs. In October 2023, however, Mother indicated to Dr. Kramer that Mother
believed Child would need a lung transplant, which Dr. Kramer indicated was
unnecessary. Dr. Kramer became concerned that Child’s reported symptoms
14 Tethered spinal cord occurs when the spinal cord attaches to the spinal canal. 15 A cecostomy tube is a tube that allows the administration of enemas directly into the large intestine for the management of severe constipation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 5 of 21 were not consistent with Dr. Kramer’s “workup and examination of” Child.
Tr. Vol. III p. 73.
[8] Dr. Andrew Strine, a pediatric urologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital,
evaluated Child for bladder dysfunction. Dr. Strine noted that doctors rely
heavily on reports from parents, especially for younger children. Mother
typically answered questions for Child, and Mother reported that Child was
having issues with incontinence, emptying her bladder, and urinary tract
infections. Dr. Strine’s testing, however, did not indicate that bladder function
was “significantly abnormal.” Tr. Vol. II p. 36. At one point, Dr. Strine
learned that Child was admitted to a different hospital, and nursing staff
reported that Child was able to urinate successfully without any incontinence.
Mother, however, reported continuing symptoms despite medication and
physical therapy. Mother was “very interested” in more invasive options,
including one option that required an abdominal operation necessitating
significant recovery time. Id. at 39, 53. Dr. Strine, however, recommended
continuing less invasive options and became concerned that the symptoms
being reported by Mother did not correlate with the evaluation of Child.
[9] On April 16, 2024, Child had her second surgery to remove her tonsils and
adenoids at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, but Mother then took Child to
PMCH on April 18 and reported that Child was unable to keep her food down.
At that time, Child wore leg braces and was being transported in a wagon or a
wheelchair for longer distances. Child also had a cecostomy tube for chronic
constipation and a GJ feeding tube. Mother had been reporting that Child
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 6 of 21 would not eat enough without the feeding tube; that Child had significant
constipation requiring the surgical installation of a cecostomy tube for bowel
movements; and that Child could not walk long distances and was falling five
to ten times per day without leg braces and three to four times per day with leg
braces. Mother continued to report that Child had chronic breathing issues.
Mother informed doctors that Child had previously received Total Parenteral
Nutrition (“TPN”), which allows nutrition to be provided through the veins
instead of the gastrointestinal tract. Mother asked about Child receiving TPN
again due to Child’s alleged vomiting, but the doctors recommended against the
procedure due to its high risk.
[10] Dr. Cortney Demetris, a pediatric hospitalist and child abuse pediatrician at
PMCH, examined Child. Dr. Demetris noted that, when diagnosing medical
conditions in young children, doctors rely upon a child’s history and symptoms
as reported by the parents, a physical examination, and objective information
from testing. With young children, parental reporting of symptoms is
particularly important, even when interpreting certain objective test results.
False or exaggerated information provided by parents can result in
misdiagnoses or unnecessary diagnoses.
[11] Dr. Demetris described “medical child abuse” as abuse that occurs when a child
undergoes “unnecessary and harmful or potentially harmful medical care at the
instigation of a caregiver who [is] providing false information to the medical
teams.” Tr. Vol. II p. 63. The child could have legitimate underlying medical
conditions, but the medical care is “perpetuate[d] after the healthcare condition
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 7 of 21 is no longer requiring treatment.” Id. at 144. Medical child abuse is harmful to
a child because of the risks associated with the unnecessary healthcare, placing
the child in a “sick role,” in which the child believes he or she is sick, and
which causes the child to miss normal developmental opportunities. Id. at 92.
Medical child abuse can cause also psychological issues in the child that persist
into adulthood.
[12] Dr. Demetris was concerned that Child was being subjected to medical child
abuse because “there was a pattern of the types of medical problems that are
largely based on provided history [w]ith a relative paucity of objective finding[s]
supporting those diagnoses[.]” Tr. Vol. IV p. 67. Further, Dr. Demetris was
concerned due to “maternal requests for some high risk medical interventions
that seemed unusual and then also a relatively well appearing child despite the
multiple medical diagnoses and procedures that she had.” Id. Dr. Demetris
determined that Child was possibly a subject of medical child abuse after her
evaluation of Child, review of Child’s medical records, and discussions with
Child’s medical providers.
[13] On April 20, 2024, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report
that Child was subjected to medical child abuse by Mother. A family case
manager interviewed Mother on two occasions to discuss the medical
treatments provided to Child. Mother said that both PMCH and Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital providers advised that Child would need a lung transplant
if her pulmonary issues continued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 8 of 21 [14] On May 9, 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS under
Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 (general neglect). DCS alleged that Child had
received excessive and improper medical care based upon Mother’s
misrepresentation and overstatement of Child’s symptoms, history, and
diagnoses. The trial court authorized Child’s removal from Mother’s care.
[15] Child was admitted to PMCH on May 10 for a ten-day observational stay in
which her parents were not allowed to visit. During this stay, most of the
medical interventions were discontinued. Dr. Demetris observed that Child
was healthy; Child was eating normally without the feeding tube; Child was
able to defecate normally with only over-the-counter Miralax; Child was able to
run, walk, and skip without braces or a wheelchair; Child only fell once during
her hospital stay; and Child did not have any urinary or respiratory issues. Dr.
Demetris questioned the necessity of several surgeries and procedures that had
been performed on Child. Dr. Demetris observed a pattern of false information
provided by Mother to obtain healthcare for Child, and she was “[v]ery”
confident in a diagnosis of medical child abuse. Tr. Vol. II p. 106. Child was
subjected to many more surgeries than other patients Dr. Demetris had
diagnosed with medical child abuse.
[16] On June 5, 2024, DCS filed an amended petition alleging that Child was a
CHINS under both Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 (general neglect) and
Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2 (serious endangerment). Specifically, DCS
alleged that Child had been the subject of multiple invasive and unnecessary
medical procedures based upon Mother’s reports of symptoms. DCS also
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 9 of 21 added Stepfather as a party and alleged that he had “not acted to secure
[Child’s] safety and well-being.” Stepfather’s App. Vol. II p. 99.
[17] Child’s first foster parent cared for Child from June 10, 2024, to July 15, 2024.
The foster parent observed no issues with Child eating, defecating, sleeping,
breathing, coughing, balancing, falling, or walking on her toes. Child did not
use her GJ tube for eating, her cecostomy tube for defecation, her wheelchair,
her leg braces, or her rescue asthma inhaler. The foster parent also saw no
indication that Child had autism. Overall, Child was “very healthy,” and her
foster parent did not “have any concerns for her health.” Tr. Vol. III p. 126.
During supervised visits, Child was very active and playful, did not use leg
braces or a wheelchair, and did not struggle with walking, falling, eating, or
using the restroom.
[18] The trial court held fact-finding hearings on September 6, 10, 17, and 24, 2024,
January 23, 2025, and February 4, 2025. At the time of the fact-finding
hearings, Child’s GJ tube and cecostomy tube had been removed. Child was
eating normally and defecating well; Child did not have any breathing problems
and was no longer on medications for her breathing; and Child was being
weaned off “medication for GI” issues. Tr. Vol. II p. 91.
[19] Mother testified that Child has autism; Crouzon syndrome; colonic dysmotility;
gastric issues; swallowing issues; tethered spinal cord, which was corrected;
vision issues; mobility issues; bronchomalacia; tracheomalacia; and
laryngomalacia. Mother believed that Child’s gastric issues had resolved and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 10 of 21 that Child has “outgrown things or things have seemed to get better as she’s
gotten older.” Tr. Vol. III p. 195. Mother denied fabricating Child’s
symptoms.
[20] Dr. Nelson Rosen, a pediatric colorectal and urogenital reconstructive surgeon,
testified that he performed the cecostomy surgery based upon Mother’s reports
of Child’s symptoms, which, according to Mother, had not resolved with other
therapies. Dr. Rosen, with hindsight, had regrets about doing the surgery.
[21] On February 27, 2025, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions
thereon finding Child to be a CHINS. The trial court found that Dr. Demetris
was “eminently credible;” that Mother provided false information regarding
Child’s symptoms that resulted in “misdiagnoses or unnecessary diagnos[e]s;”
and that Child “was the victim of medical child abuse.” Stepfather’s App. Vol.
II pp. 192, 195, 196. The trial court found Mother was not credible and
concluded:
Mother did not present to the Court as someone who believes she has done anything wrong. She has a genuine belief that [Child] had symptoms and diagnoses that needed medical treatment (she sometimes suggested or requested specific treatments to [Child’s] medical providers, supra). The evidence established that [Child] did not have the symptoms Mother reported, and had procedures/treatments that were unnecessary. This lack of understanding is concerning to the Court should [Child] be returned home at present. Based on the evidence, the Court concludes that [Child] would continue to be subjected to unnecessary treatments because of Mother’s inaccurate reporting of [Child’s] symptoms.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 11 of 21 All of the credible evidence submitted to the Court leads the Court to conclude that the Parents, primarily Mother, were either overblowing or making up [Child’s] symptoms in communications with [Child’s] healthcare providers, which often resulted in more medical visits/treatments, or unnecessary medical visits/treatments.
The Court finds that without its involvement, [Child’s] physical and mental wellbeing is seriously endangered. There is enough of a pattern and practice by the Parents of conduct that resulted in unnecessary/overblown treatment and/or medical child abuse which, combined with Mother’s lack of insight into what happened with [Child], supra, requires Court intervention. Even without the Court’s conclusion that the Parents engaged in what Dr. Demetris described as medical child abuse, the Court finds that the history of Parents (primarily Mother) taking actions to obtain too much or unnecessary medical treatment for [Child] put [Child] in physical and mental danger that would not cease absent coercive intervention from the Court. [Stepfather] has not taken steps to prevent this from happening.
Id. at 201-02 (citation omitted). The trial court concluded that Child was a
CHINS under both Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 and Indiana Code Section
31-34-1-2.
[22] On April 14, 2025, the trial court entered its dispositional order and ordered
Child to remain in foster care; ordered that Child’s medical care not be altered
absent the consent of her medical team or the trial court; and required Mother
and Stepfather, in part, to complete a psychological evaluation tailored to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 12 of 21 diagnosis of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another16 and follow the
recommendations of the evaluation. Mother and Stepfather now appeal.
Discussion and Decision [23] Mother and Stepfather challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
trial court’s determination that Child is a CHINS. CHINS proceedings are civil
actions; thus, “the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a
child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457,
475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010));
see Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor
judge the credibility of the witnesses. R.L. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child. Servs., 144
N.E.3d 686, 689 (Ind. 2020).
[24] Here, the trial court entered, sua sponte, findings of fact and conclusions
thereon in granting the CHINS petition. “‘As to the issues covered by the
findings, we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the
findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.’” N.E., 228 N.E.3d at
475 (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014)). We review the
remaining issues under the general judgment standard, which provides that a
judgment “‘will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported
by the evidence.’” Id. (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind.
16 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, formerly known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, involves making false claims that someone within your care needs medical attention.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 13 of 21 1997)). We will reverse a CHINS adjudication only if it is clearly
erroneous. R.L., 144 N.E.3d at 686.
[25] DCS must prove three elements for a juvenile court to adjudicate a child as a
CHINS: (1) the child is under the age of eighteen; (2) one of eleven different
statutory circumstances exist that would make the child a CHINS; and (3) the
child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not receiving and
is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the
court. N.E., 228 N.E.3d at 475.
[26] Here, the trial court found Child was a CHINS under both Indiana Code
Section 31-34-1-1 (general neglect) and Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2 (serious
endangerment). Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 provides:
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:
(A) when the parent, guardian, or custodian is financially able to do so; or
(B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent, guardian, or custodian to seek financial or other reasonable means to do so; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 14 of 21 (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.
[27] And at the time this CHINS action was filed, Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-
2(a) 17 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 health is seriously endangered due to injury by the act or omission of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that:
(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court
[28] “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not [to] punish
parents.” N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. A CHINS adjudication is not a
determination of parental fault but rather is a determination that a child is in
17 Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2(a) was amended effective July 1, 2025.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 15 of 21 need of services and is unlikely to receive those services without intervention of
the court. Id. at 105. “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the
child . . . . [T]he acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that
creates the need for court intervention.” Id. (citations omitted). “A CHINS
finding should consider the family’s condition not just when the case was filed,
but also when it is heard.” S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290.
[29] Mother argues that the trial court’s findings that Child is seriously endangered,
that Child’s needs are unmet, and that the trial court’s coercive intervention is
necessary are clearly erroneous. Stepfather argues that the trial court’s finding
that coercive intervention is necessary is clearly erroneous. 18
A. Serious Endangerment
[30] Mother first argues that Child was not seriously endangered by Mother’s
actions. Mother contends that Child is currently healthy; that Mother followed
the guidance of medical professionals; and that Child’s medical conditions
resolved independent of DCS involvement. The trial court, however,
concluded that Child was seriously endangered because “Parents, primarily
Mother, were either overblowing or making up [Child’s] symptoms in
communications with [Child’s] healthcare providers, which often resulted in
more medical visits/treatments, or unnecessary medical visits/treatments.”
18 It is unclear whether Mother and Stepfather are challenging the adjudication under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 or Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2(a). Accordingly, we will address the adjudication under both statutes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 16 of 21 Stepfather’s App. Vol. II p. 201. The trial court concluded that Mother’s
actions “to obtain too much or unnecessary medical treatment” for Child put
Child in physical and mental danger. Id. at 202.
[31] Dr. Demetris testified that medical child abuse is harmful to a child because: (1)
there are risks associated with the unnecessary healthcare; (2) the child is placed
in a “sick role,” in which the child believes he or she is sick; and (3) the child
misses normal developmental opportunities. Tr. Vol. II p. 92. DCS presented
evidence that Mother exaggerated or fabricated Child’s symptoms, which
resulted in extensive medical evaluations and treatments. Mother repeatedly
claimed that Child was having severe symptoms of various conditions, which
were not confirmed by objective testing or testing demonstrated minor versions
of these conditions. As a result, Child was subjected to numerous unnecessary
procedures and surgeries, which caused unnecessary pain and placed Child at
substantial risk. During the observational stay, most medications and medical
supports were discontinued, and Child was observed to be healthy.
[32] Although Mother claims that Child was already on her way to being healthy
due to prior medical interventions, we note that in the months before DCS’s
intervention, Mother was still claiming Child had severe symptoms and was
seeking serious medical interventions. At the fact-finding hearing, Mother still
claimed that Child had serious medical issues despite Child’s health in foster
care. Although Mother claims that she was merely following medical advice,
Mother ignores the impact that her exaggeration or fabrication of symptoms
had on Child’s medical care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 17 of 21 [33] The trial court found that Mother was not credible, and Mother’s arguments on
appeal merely request that we reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of
the witnesses, which we cannot do. Under these circumstances, we cannot say
the trial court’s finding of serious endangerment is clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that Child’s physical or mental condition
was seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability,
refusal, or neglect of Child’s parent to supply Child with necessary medical care
is not clearly erroneous. See I.C. § 31-34-1-1. Further, the trial court’s finding
that Child’s physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury
by the act or omission of Child’s parent is not clearly erroneous. See I.C. § 31-
34-1-2.
B. Unmet Needs
[34] Next, Mother argues that DCS failed to demonstrate that Child’s needs were
unmet by Mother. Mother argues that Child’s good health after removal
demonstrates that Mother was meeting Child’s needs. DCS, however, points
out that Mother’s argument misses the mark, and we agree. Mother subjected
Child to unnecessary and potentially harmful medical care. Child’s good health
after removal of the medical interventions demonstrated that those medical
interventions were unnecessary. Mother’s argument is merely a request to
reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The trial court’s finding that Child
needed appropriate medical care, which she was not receiving, is not clearly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 18 of 21 C. Coercive Intervention
[35] Finally, both Mother and Stepfather argue that DCS failed to present evidence
that the coercive intervention of the court was necessary. This CHINS element
“guards against unwarranted State interference in family life, reserving that
intrusion for families ‘where parents lack the ability to provide for their
children,’ not merely where they ‘encounter difficulty in meeting a child’s
needs.’” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017) (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at
1287) (italics in original). “[C]ourts ‘should consider the family’s condition not
just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’” Id. (quoting S.D., 2
N.E.3d at 1290). “Doing so avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when
they have already corrected them.” Id. at 581.
[36] Mother argues that the medical providers are now on “high alert for any
potential falsification by Mother” and that many of Child’s medical issues have
resolved. Mother’s Appellant’s Br. p. 22. Stepfather also argues that Child is
no longer in need of “extensive medical treatment” and that the coercive
intervention of the court is unnecessary. Stepfather’s Appellant’s Br. p. 13. The
trial court, however, found that Mother did not believe she had done anything
wrong and that Child “would continue to be subjected to unnecessary
treatments because of Mother’s inaccurate reporting of [Child’s] symptoms”
without the court’s coercive intervention. Stepfather’s App. Vol. II pp. 201-02.
Further, the trial court found that Stepfather failed to take “steps to prevent this
from happening.” Id. at 202.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 19 of 21 [37] Even in light of Child’s extraordinary improvement during the observational
stay, at the fact-finding hearing, Mother testified that Child still had numerous
medical conditions, including conditions that medical testing ruled out. Mother
denied exaggerating or fabricating any of Child’s symptoms. Similarly,
Stepfather testified that Mother was in charge of Child’s medical care and that
he did not believe Mother exaggerated or fabricated Child’s symptoms, despite
the medical evidence showing otherwise. Mother and Stepfather are merely
requesting that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Given the
evidence presented, the trial court’s finding that Mother would continue to
subject Child to unnecessary medical care without the court’s coercive
intervention is not clearly erroneous. 19
Conclusion [38] The trial court’s finding that Child is a CHINS is not clearly erroneous.
[39] Affirmed.
19 Mother also contends that the current level of coercion is “overbroad” and that Child should return home with services continuing. Mother’s Appellant’s Br. p. 23. To the extent Mother is challenging the trial court’s dispositional order, we review a trial court’s order for services and conditions in a CHINS case for an abuse of discretion. In re B.W., 266 N.E.3d 744, 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s action is “against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. DCS recommended out-of-home placement until Mother and Stepfather can provide an environment free of medical abuse, and the trial court ordered that Child remain in her current placement. Further, Mother and Stepfather were ordered to obtain psychological evaluations and follow any recommendations. Given the severity of the medical abuse here, we cannot say the trial court’s order was an abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 20 of 21 Bailey, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT-MOTHER Talisha R. Griffin Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana
Don R. Hostetler Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT-STEPFATHER Ellen M. O’Connor Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
David E. Corey Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1178 | February 9, 2026 Page 21 of 21