CHINS: M V v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals

CHINS: M V v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided January 7, 2026·No. 25A-JC-01223·Published·Judge DeBoer

Opinion

FILED

Jan 07 2026, 8:47 am

CLERK

Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana In the Matter of G.V. and A.V., Children in Need of Services, and M.V., (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent

v.

Indiana Department of Child Services, et al.

Appellee-Petitioner

January 7, 2026

Court of Appeals Case No.

25A-JC-1223

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Geoffrey A. Gaither, Judge Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-2501-JC-331

49D09-2501-JC-333

Opinion by Judge DeBoer

Judges Bradford and Weissmann concur.

DeBoer, Judge.

Case Summary [1] M.V. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s determination that her daughter, G.V.

(Child), is a Child in Need of Services (CHINS). She presents multiple arguments on appeal, but we find one to be dispositive: whether remand is necessary because most of the court’s findings are improper and the remaining findings do not support the CHINS determination. Answering that question in the affirmative, we remand to the trial court for proper findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Mother has four children, two of whom are the subjects of the underlying

CHINS proceedings. A.V., who was born on May 15, 2015, is the daughter of Mother and M.M. (Father M). G.V., who was born on January 2, 2024, is the daughter of Mother and A.J. (Father J). Mother had legal and physical custody of G.V. and unsupervised visits with A.V. 1

1 Father M had primary custody of A.V. for approximately a year and a half leading up to the proceedings.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1223 | January 7, 2026 Page 2 of 14

[3] In January 2025, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report that Mother was physically abusing A.V. The report involved an incident that occurred while A.V. was staying with Mother over her 2024 Christmas break. A.V. told DCS that Mother took her into the bathroom, yelled and cussed at her, held her down, pulled her hair, and hit her with a slipper. A.V. had a scratch on her forehead and reported having another on her back. At the insistence of DCS, Father M took A.V. to the hospital two days later to be examined. The examination revealed bruising and scratches on A.V.’s arm and leg, a faint bruise on her right cheek, and a scratch on her forehead. She also had an injury to her foot that she said was not caused by Mother.

[4] A.V. also told DCS that she “saw [Mother] smack [G.V.] on the leg” and that “[i]t was loud and left a red mark.” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 2 at 31. When a DCS family case manager (FCM) visited Mother’s home to follow up on these reports, she observed a goose egg on G.V.’s head. Mother said that A.V. and G.V. had been playing and G.V. fell and hit her head. At the FCM’s instruction, Mother took G.V. to Riley Children’s Hospital for a pediatric evaluation. G.V.’s skeletal and head scans were normal, she was not admitted to the hospital, there was no follow-up requested, and there were no recommendations made for ongoing medical care.

[5] That same day, while Mother was still at the hospital with G.V., a different FCM came and removed G.V. from Mother’s care without a court order under instructions from “upper management that [those were] the processes [they]

were following that day.” Transcript at 71. While the FCM did not notice any marks or bruises on G.V. at the hospital, she was concerned by Mother’s behavior during the removal, describing her as “very frantic[.]” Id. at 68. A few days later, DCS filed requests to take custody of G.V. and A.V. and to file CHINS petitions. The court granted those requests and DCS filed its CHINS petition, alleging that both A.V. and G.V. were CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and 31-34-1-2(a). Both girls were placed in Father M’s care.

[6] Before the fact-finding hearing, Mother participated in supervised visitation with the girls. The first visit supervisor ended the visits after only three sessions because she was concerned about Mother and A.V.’s relationship, but she did not have any safety concerns related to G.V. She recommended therapeutic visitation, but instead, Mother was referred to a second supervisor for general supervised visitation. The second supervisor completed two visits with Mother and the girls, one of which took place at the Children’s Museum. At the beginning of the visit, the supervisor found it strange that Mother changed G.V.’s diaper on the floor of the lobby given the heavy foot traffic in that area, but she did not intervene. She was also concerned that Mother let G.V. play in the water exhibit given how cold outside it was that day, but Mother had a change of clothes for G.V. When G.V. later soiled her second outfit, Mother changed her into a third outfit that was sleeveless; however, G.V. had winter pants and a coat to wear. The next day, Mother had her second visit and carried G.V. and wouldn’t put her down. This frustrated G.V., who wanted to be put down. The second supervisor observed G.V. acting happier after being let down to play with A.V. while A.V. and Mother argued the rest of the visit.

[7] In March, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petitions. Mother, Fathers M and J, three DCS FCMs, the two visit supervisors, and a friend of Mother testified to the facts above. After DCS rested its case, Mother moved to dismiss the petition as to G.V., arguing that “DCS ha[d] not met its burden” and that “there [was] no correlation between the bruise on [G.V.’s] head and any act or inaction [Mother] herself did.” Tr. at 118. The court denied the motion and, after hearing closing arguments, found both A.V. and G.V. were CHINS. Mother then requested that G.V. be returned to her care on a trial home visit (THV), which the court denied. The court later entered its fact-finding order with findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[8] In April, after the dispositional hearing, the trial court entered its order which continued the girls’ placements with Father M. In addition to the standard requirements 2 under a dispositional order, Mother was required to complete a psychological evaluation and family functional assessment and participate in

2 The standard requirements include staying in contact and cooperating with DCS and service providers, enrolling in recommended services, maintaining suitable housing, and caring and providing a safe environment for the children.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JC-1223 | January 7, 2026 Page 5 of 14 therapy. 3 Mother renewed her request for a THV with G.V. which the court again denied. Mother only appeals G.V.’s CHINS determination.

Discussion and Decision [9] Mother contends that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous

because they fail to support its judgment. Specifically, she claims that an overwhelming majority of the findings “merely recite what witnesses ‘testified,’ ‘stated,’ ‘reported[,]’ or ‘believed’ or recite general trial proceedings instead of [] factual determinations.” Appellant’s Brief at 17. We agree.

[10] DCS’s CHINS petition for G.V. alleged G.V. was a CHINS under two statutes: Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 (neglect) and 31-34-1-2 (abuse). 4 DCS had to prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Code § 31-34-12- 3. Pursuant to the neglect statute, DCS must prove that:

(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[] . . . to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI