MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 14 2017, 8:58 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Special Assistant to the Attorney General of Indiana State Public Defender Robert J. Henke Wieneke Law Office, LLC David E. Corey Brooklyn, Indiana Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: B.W. (Minor Child), March 14, 2017 Child in Need of Services, Court of Appeals Case No. 52A02-1610-JC-2323 Appeal from the Miami Circuit J.W. (Father), Court Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Timothy P. Spahr, Judge v. Trial Court Cause No. 52C01-1606-JC-64 The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 1 of 7 [1] J.W. (Father) appeals the order declaring his son, B.W. (Child) to be a Child in
Need of Services (CHINS). Father contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support the CHINS adjudication. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts [2] Child was born in July 2002. In April 2015, Child was the subject of a CHINS
proceeding that was resolved with the establishment of a guardianship with his
aunt and uncle (Guardians). A requirement of the guardianship was that Child
was to live with Guardians. Father was permitted to exercise reasonable
parenting time. To regain custody of Child, Father was required to complete
certain services and requirements. He never did so, and the guardianship
remained in effect at the time of the current CHINS factfinding hearing.
[3] In June 2015, Child’s mother died. In July 2015, Child’s Guardians separated
and Aunt moved to Missouri. Child stayed with Father and paternal relatives
in Indiana for the summer and early fall and moved to Missouri in October
2015 after the paternal relatives “had problems with” Child. Appellant’s Br. p.
6. Child attended approximately one week of school in Missouri before getting
expelled for fighting. After the expulsion, he remained in Missouri for nearly
three months. He was not in school during that time.
[4] In December 2015, Child returned to Indiana to live with Father and his
girlfriend, but they did not enroll him in school. Between that time and June
2016, Child bounced around between different caregivers, including: Father in
Indiana; Father and his girlfriend in Indiana; Father, his girlfriend, and Aunt in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Missouri; and Father’s girlfriend and her relatives. Child was not enrolled in
school during this time. Father later testified that he attempted to enroll Child
in school in Indiana but that the principal would not let Child enroll because of
the previous expulsion. Father also stated that he began to research the
possibility of Child enrolling in an online school, but he went to jail in March
2016 on an unrelated criminal matter,1 which derailed the process.
[5] On June 14, 2016, the Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report
regarding Child. During its investigation, DCS learned that Child had been at
the home of paternal relatives (with Father’s permission) when law enforcement
learned that there was a methamphetamine lab in the home. Child was taken
to the hospital, where he tested positive for methamphetamine and THC. Child
admitted to the Family Case Manager (FCM) that he had used both drugs.
[6] On June 15, 2016, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS, based
both on the drug use and Child’s extended absence from school. DCS removed
Child from Father’s care and custody and placed him at the Youth Opportunity
Center (YOC), a residential treatment facility. On July 9, 2016, Child ran away
from YOC, and he was still on the run at the time of the factfinding hearing.
Child was with his half-brother and reached out to Father to ask for money; he
called Father three or four times while on the run. Father did not cooperate
1 The record does not reveal the nature of the unrelated criminal matter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 3 of 7 with DCS’s attempts to find Child, failing to inform DCS that Child had
reported that he was with a family friend in North Carolina.
[7] At some point between the filing of the CHINS petition and the factfinding
hearing, Father asked the FCM to refer him for individual therapy. She did so,
but Father did not follow through and has not participated in that service.
[8] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on August 10, 2016, and on August
28, 2016, the trial court entered its order finding Child to be a CHINS. A
dispositional order was entered on September 22, 2016, ordering Father, Child,
and Guardians to participate in services. Father now appeals.2
Discussion and Decision [9] Father contends that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
CHINS finding. 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
2 Child’s Guardians are parties to the CHINS case, but are not participating in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 4 of 7 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 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).
[10] Here, DCS alleged that the child was CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section
31-34-1-1, which provides as follows:
A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes eighteen (18) years of age:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 14 2017, 8:58 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Special Assistant to the Attorney General of Indiana State Public Defender Robert J. Henke Wieneke Law Office, LLC David E. Corey Brooklyn, Indiana Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: B.W. (Minor Child), March 14, 2017 Child in Need of Services, Court of Appeals Case No. 52A02-1610-JC-2323 Appeal from the Miami Circuit J.W. (Father), Court Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Timothy P. Spahr, Judge v. Trial Court Cause No. 52C01-1606-JC-64 The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 1 of 7 [1] J.W. (Father) appeals the order declaring his son, B.W. (Child) to be a Child in
Need of Services (CHINS). Father contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support the CHINS adjudication. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts [2] Child was born in July 2002. In April 2015, Child was the subject of a CHINS
proceeding that was resolved with the establishment of a guardianship with his
aunt and uncle (Guardians). A requirement of the guardianship was that Child
was to live with Guardians. Father was permitted to exercise reasonable
parenting time. To regain custody of Child, Father was required to complete
certain services and requirements. He never did so, and the guardianship
remained in effect at the time of the current CHINS factfinding hearing.
[3] In June 2015, Child’s mother died. In July 2015, Child’s Guardians separated
and Aunt moved to Missouri. Child stayed with Father and paternal relatives
in Indiana for the summer and early fall and moved to Missouri in October
2015 after the paternal relatives “had problems with” Child. Appellant’s Br. p.
6. Child attended approximately one week of school in Missouri before getting
expelled for fighting. After the expulsion, he remained in Missouri for nearly
three months. He was not in school during that time.
[4] In December 2015, Child returned to Indiana to live with Father and his
girlfriend, but they did not enroll him in school. Between that time and June
2016, Child bounced around between different caregivers, including: Father in
Indiana; Father and his girlfriend in Indiana; Father, his girlfriend, and Aunt in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Missouri; and Father’s girlfriend and her relatives. Child was not enrolled in
school during this time. Father later testified that he attempted to enroll Child
in school in Indiana but that the principal would not let Child enroll because of
the previous expulsion. Father also stated that he began to research the
possibility of Child enrolling in an online school, but he went to jail in March
2016 on an unrelated criminal matter,1 which derailed the process.
[5] On June 14, 2016, the Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report
regarding Child. During its investigation, DCS learned that Child had been at
the home of paternal relatives (with Father’s permission) when law enforcement
learned that there was a methamphetamine lab in the home. Child was taken
to the hospital, where he tested positive for methamphetamine and THC. Child
admitted to the Family Case Manager (FCM) that he had used both drugs.
[6] On June 15, 2016, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS, based
both on the drug use and Child’s extended absence from school. DCS removed
Child from Father’s care and custody and placed him at the Youth Opportunity
Center (YOC), a residential treatment facility. On July 9, 2016, Child ran away
from YOC, and he was still on the run at the time of the factfinding hearing.
Child was with his half-brother and reached out to Father to ask for money; he
called Father three or four times while on the run. Father did not cooperate
1 The record does not reveal the nature of the unrelated criminal matter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 3 of 7 with DCS’s attempts to find Child, failing to inform DCS that Child had
reported that he was with a family friend in North Carolina.
[7] At some point between the filing of the CHINS petition and the factfinding
hearing, Father asked the FCM to refer him for individual therapy. She did so,
but Father did not follow through and has not participated in that service.
[8] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on August 10, 2016, and on August
28, 2016, the trial court entered its order finding Child to be a CHINS. A
dispositional order was entered on September 22, 2016, ordering Father, Child,
and Guardians to participate in services. Father now appeals.2
Discussion and Decision [9] Father contends that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
CHINS finding. 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
2 Child’s Guardians are parties to the CHINS case, but are not participating in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 4 of 7 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 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).
[10] Here, DCS alleged that the child was CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section
31-34-1-1, 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 5 of 7 [11] Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to require “three basic
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.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283,
1287 (Ind. 2014).
[12] The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that between the time of Child’s
expulsion in September 2015 and the filing of the CHINS petition in June 2016,
he was not enrolled in school, be it a brick and mortar school, an online school,
or a home schooling program. In other words, he attended only one week of
school during the 2015-16 school year. Also during those months, Child was
bounced between multiple residences and multiple caregivers in multiple states.
And in June 2016, Child admitted to using methamphetamine and THC after
testing positive for both substances.
[13] These undisputed facts, alone, readily support the trial court’s conclusion that
Child’s physical or mental condition was seriously endangered as a result of the
inability, refusal, or neglect of Father and Guardians to supply Child with
necessary education and supervision. Moreover, Child clearly needs care and
treatment that he is not currently receiving. Finally, given that Father and
Guardians had had approximately nine months to solve Child’s educational
situation (or to ask for help) and had failed to do so, that Father had requested a
referral for therapy but failed to engage with that service provider, and that
Father had failed to cooperate with DCS after Child absconded from his
placement at YOC, the evidence likewise establishes that the care and treatment
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 6 of 7 that Child needs will not be provided or accepted without the coercive
intervention of the court.
[14] Father raises the following arguments in response to the CHINS finding:
(1) Child was expelled because of his own choices, not because of Father’s
neglect; (2) Father attempted to enroll Child in school in Indiana but the
principal would not permit the enrollment because of the past expulsion, so
Father began researching online schooling opportunities but was interrupted
when he was arrested and incarcerated; (3) Aunt attempted to enroll Child in
summer school but he refused to go; and (4) Father was not aware of Child’s
drug use or of the presence of drugs in the home of the paternal relatives. The
second and fourth arguments are mere requests that we reweigh evidence and
reassess witness credibility—a request we decline. The first argument is an
attempt to shift blame to Child, which is not only inappropriate but also
evidences the underlying problem. Finally, the third argument—that Child
refused to go to summer school and his Guardian was unable to make him go—
supports the CHINS finding. This family needs help to manage and treat
Child’s behavior, and the CHINS adjudication and services that go along with
it will provide them the assistance they sorely need.
[15] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 7 of 7