MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 01 2018, 8:01 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: K.W. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Andrew R. Falk Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: P.M. Jr. David E. Corey Deputy Attorney General Melinda K. Jackman-Hanlin Indianapolis, Indiana Greencastle, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: E.M., S.M., November 1, 2018 A.M., and P.M. III, Court of Appeals Case No. Children Alleged to be in 18A-JC-822 Need of Services, Appeal from the Hendricks K.M. (Mother) and Superior Court P.M., Jr. (Father), The Honorable Karen M. Love, Judge Appellants-Respondents, Trial Court Cause Nos. v. 32D03-1709-JC-156 32D03-1709-JC-157 32D03-1709-JC-158 The Indiana Department of 32D03-1709-JC-159 Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
Vaidik, Chief Judge Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 1 of 23 Case Summary [1] P.M., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s determination that his four
children (S.M., E.M., P.M. III, and A.M.) are children in need of services
(CHINS). K.M. (“Mother”) separately appeals the trial court’s determination
that her two children (P.M. and A.M.) are CHINS. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] In July 2017, Father and Mother (collectively, “Parents”) were married and
lived with their two children, P.M., born in September 2013, and A.M., born in
August 2015, in Clayton.1 Father’s children from his previous marriage to
K.S.—S.M., born in October 2005, and E.M., born in August 2007—also lived
with them.2
[3] On July 17, Hendricks County DCS received multiple reports alleging that
S.M., E.M., P.M., and A.M. were victims of neglect. One of the reports alleged
that the children:
1 Mother has a history with DCS. In May 2017, Putnam County DCS received multiple reports concerning A.M. DCS substantiated Mother’s neglect of A.M. but could not locate Mother. During the assessment, Father denied knowing where Mother was. Father was not involved in the Putnam County assessment. Putnam County dismissed its CHINS case when Hendricks County DCS filed its CHINS petitions at issue in this appeal. See Mother’s App. Vol. II p. 56; see also Tr. Vol. II pp. 45-56. 2 K.S. was involved throughout the CHINS proceedings but does not appeal the trial court’s determination that her two children, S.M. and E.M., are CHINS.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 2 of 23 are not being fed and the children do not have basic needs in the home . . . [P.M.] has bumps and scabs all over his body. [Father] refuses to take the children to the doctor. The home is deplorable. [Father] is mean and smack[s] the children. [Father] smacks [P.M.] the hardest. [P.M.] always has marks and bruises on him. [Parents] have a lot of domestic violence. [Parents] break up on and off and stay inside often due to their fighting.
Mother’s App. Vol. II p. 20. Other reports included additional allegations that:
the children “ha[d] scabies”; there was “sewage running underneath the home”;
and Father “use[s] methamphetamine when he has the money.” Id. at 21.
After receiving these reports, Family Case Manager (FCM) Steven Junkersfeld
was assigned by DCS to conduct an assessment.
[4] That same day, FCM Junkersfeld visited Parents’ house. When FCM
Junkersfeld arrived, Mother, P.M., and A.M. were home and Father was at
work. The house was in poor condition. There were holes in the walls and
floors and electrical wires running throughout the house. The house was
cluttered with trash and power tools, and other “miscellaneous objects” were on
the floor within reach of P.M. and A.M. Tr. Vol. II p. 74. FCM Junkersfeld
saw P.M. running around unsupervised and playing with the power tools.
FCM Junkersfeld also saw A.M. sleeping “face down in a bunch of clothing.”
Id. at 73. After FCM Junkersfeld asked Mother to move A.M. into a different
position (because he was worried about safe sleep), FCM Junkersfeld saw
“bruising” on A.M.’s body, including on the sides of her arms and “several on
[her] leg.” Id. at 76. He also noticed a “decent sized knot on [A.M.’s]
forehead.” Id. Mother’s explanation for the bruises and knot on A.M.’s head
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 3 of 23 was “kids are kids. They’re just playing around.” Id. FCM Junkersfeld also
observed P.M. and saw that he had “scabs head to toe.” Id. at 74. Mother said
the scabs were “just poison ivy. The other kids had it, it’ll just go away.” Id.
During the visit, Mother disclosed to FCM Junkersfeld that she “had anxiety,
depression and personality disorder and . . . hasn’t had, um, any medical
attention . . . since April . . . .” Id. at 76. After FCM Junkersfeld finished
making his observations, he called a doctor to get a recommendation as to
whether the children needed to be seen by medical professionals. The doctor
recommended that the children be taken to the emergency room immediately to
be evaluated.
[5] FCM Junkersfeld relayed this information to Mother (who was willing to let the
children be seen) and then called Father to notify him of the doctor’s
recommendation. Father responded that “the children will not be seen.
They’re not getting any medical treatment.” Id. at 77. Father was “very irate”
and told FCM Junkersfeld to leave the house immediately because “he [did not]
like that another male [was] talking to [Mother.]” Id.; see also id. at 93-94. After
speaking with Father, FCM Junkersfeld left Parents’ house and spoke with
other DCS staff. Ultimately, DCS determined that the children needed to be
removed.
[6] A few hours after he left, FCM Junkersfeld returned to Parents’ house to
remove the children. By that time, Father had gotten off work and was at the
house. FCM Junkersfeld spoke with Father about the situation and Father
responded, “[T]his is stupid I do not know why you are taking my kids away
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 4 of 23 from me.” Mother’s App. Vol. II p. 22. Father also commented that DCS’s
concerns were “ridiculous.” Id. During their conversation, FCM Junkersfeld
asked Father if he would take a drug screen and Father refused. After speaking
with Father, FCM Junkersfeld removed the two younger children, P.M. and
A.M., and took them to the hospital (S.M. and E.M. were not home at the time
because they were staying at a family member’s house). At the hospital, P.M.
and A.M. were diagnosed with scabies and prescribed treatment. FCM
Junkersfeld called Parents to update them on the status of P.M.’s and A.M.’s
medical evaluations. During the conversation, Father informed FCM
Junkersfeld that while he was cleaning the house he found drug paraphernalia
that belonged to his brother and that he had gotten rid of it. FCM Junkersfeld
offered Father another drug screen but, once again, Father refused.
[7] After P.M. and A.M. were seen by physicians, they were placed in foster care.
The next day, FCM Junkersfeld spoke with K.S. and told her about the
situation. During the conversation, K.S. “expressed concerns of . . . domestic
violence and . . . [that] the kids [were] not getting treatment . . . .” Tr. Vol. II p.
79. FCM Junkersfeld discussed placing K.S.’s two children with her, but she
was living with someone who did not pass a drug screen, so S.M. and E.M.
were placed with their maternal grandmother. Before completing his portion of
the assessment, FCM Junkersfeld put in referrals and offered numerous services
to the family, including a mental-health evaluation for Mother, a substance-
abuse evaluation for Father, and domestic-violence and parenting assessments
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 5 of 23 for Parents. Parents rejected the services and told FCM Junkersfeld that they
“don’t want to do services.” Id. at 95.
[8] On July 21, Scott Butrum from Hendricks County Planning and Building
visited Parents’ residence and declared the property unsafe. Butrum posted a
notice that the house was unsafe because there were “a lot of unsafe issues for
children or adults.” Id. at 59. That same day, Hendricks County DCS
requested authorization to file CHINS petitions for all four children. The trial
court granted the requests, and DCS filed a CHINS petition for each of the four
children. To comply with statutory time limits, the original CHINS petitions
were dismissed by the trial court on September 20, and DCS filed new petitions
containing the same allegations on September 22.
[9] In the petitions, DCS alleged that the children were in need of services pursuant
to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, as the children’s physical or mental
conditions were seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the
inability, refusal, or neglect of Parents to supply the children with necessary
food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision. The CHINS
petitions further asserted that the children needed care, treatment, or
rehabilitation that they were not receiving and that is unlikely to be provided or
accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. On September 22, the
trial court held an initial/detention hearing, appointed counsel to represent
Mother, Father, and K.S., and continued the children’s detention outside the
home. See id. at 40-41.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 6 of 23 [10] On October 31, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the four CHINS
petitions. FCM Constance Besner testified that sometime in late July, the case
was transitioned from FCM Junkersfeld to her. FCM Besner stated that on
August 18, she visited Parents’ house and spoke with Mother, who was the only
one home at the time. After her visit, FCM Besner said she contacted Father to
arrange a meeting, but Father refused to meet with her. FCM Besner also
testified that she contacted K.S. and spoke with her over the phone. FCM
Besner said that, during their conversation, K.S. told her that Father “hit her
regularly” when they were married and that she was “worried about the
domestic violence.” Id. at 106-107; see also id. at 135. FCM Besner testified that
throughout her involvement in the case, she had offered Parents every service
possible, including assessments for domestic violence and substance abuse,
counseling, assessments for parenting and mental health, and also offered to
provide a home-based case manager. See id. at 108. FCM Besner said that
Mother took advantage of some of these services and began working with a
home-based case manager. FCM Besner also testified that Mother asked her,
during a visit to see P.M., if “the domestic violence people [could] call her”
because “in her past she has experienced, um, domestic violence.” Id. at 109,
121. Aside from Mother’s limited participation, FCM Besner said that Parents
did not accept the services she offered.
[11] FCM Besner also testified that she had provided services to the children. S.M.
and E.M. were referred to counseling to work on issues of domestic violence.
Their therapist, Arie Anderson, testified and recommended that the children’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 7 of 23 treatment include cognitive behavioral therapy. FCM Besner testified that P.M.
was referred for a trauma assessment because “he ha[d] experienced some kind
of trauma.” Id. at 112. P.M. was also referred for an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) because he was assessed for pre-kindergarten and in some areas
he was “well below average.” Id. FCM Besner referred A.M. for additional
doctor appointments to ensure that she receives regular medical care.
[12] Mother testified and stated that she was not a victim of domestic violence and
that she did not request domestic-violence counseling because she needed it, but
“because DCS wanted [her] to do it and [she] wanted to [do] whatever it took
to get [her] kids back.” Id. at 148. Mother also explained her mental-health
issues, stating that she has a personality disorder that made her “depend on
[Father] for everything.” Id. at 151. Father testified and explained that he was
upset that FCM Junkersfeld was talking to Mother because he thought he may
be “impersonating a police officer,” something he had heard about on the radio.
Id. at 165. Father also explained that his reasons for refusing to take a drug
screen were because he “didn’t want to have anything to do with it”; it “wasn’t
the best time to ask him”; and he “just wanted [DCS] to leave.” Id. at 165-66.
When questioned about why he did not accept services offered by FCMs
Junkersfeld or Besner, Father stated, “I’m stubborn, I guess . . . I just didn’t see
what I’d done wrong. And, I didn’t see any services that I needed to take. I
just want my children to come home. I didn’t do anything wrong.” Id. at 167.
When the allegations of domestic violence were brought up, Father repeatedly
called them “absurd” and stated:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 8 of 23 I don’t know, I don’t know where it came from. I don’t understand, I mean, I’ve never, I’ve never hurt anybody. So, I don’t know, I don’t know where that all was stemmed from. It’s just allegations as far as I understand.
Id. at 172. Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Lee Anne Owens
testified that she would have concerns if the children were returned to Father’s
care. CASA Owens also relayed that she had spoken to K.S., who had
expressed to her that “she is relieved that there is DCS involvement at this
point.” Id. at 182.
[13] Following the presentation of the evidence, the trial court took the matter under
advisement. On February 13, 2018, the trial court issued an order adjudicating
all four children CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code 31-34-1-1. The trial court
entered findings to support its order, which include:
*****
11. Since they were removed from the home, [S.M. and E.M.] have been involved in cognitive behavior therapy to help them work through the trauma they have suffered during their childhood. Their trauma primarily relates to domestic violence in the home.
12. When Family Case Manager, Steven Junkersfeld (“FCM Junkersfeld”) went to [Parents’] home, he observed [A.M.] sleeping on the floor, face down in a pile of blankets. FCM Junkersfeld was concerned about “safe sleep”. He also observed bruising on her face and body. The Court specifically finds FCM Junkersfeld credible. FCM Junkersfeld observed debris throughout the home, holes in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 9 of 23 the floor, holes in the walls, electric cords running everywhere. [P.M.] was running throughout the home and had scabs from head to toe. [Mother] told FCM Junkersfeld it was poison ivy.
14. [Mother] agreed the children should go to the doctor, but Father refused to allow the children to receive medical treatment. [Mother] could not or would not take the children to the doctor without Father’s approval and consent.
15. Father was very upset that [Mother] was talking to another man, i.e., FCM Junkersfeld.
16. FCM Junkersfeld removed [A.M. and P.M.] from the home and took them to receive medical care. Both children were diagnosed and treated for scabies. A skeletal survey of A.M. revealed she had swallowed a foreign object and surgical removal was considered, but [A.M.] did pass the object without surgery.
17. [K.S.] expressed concern that [E.M. and S.M.] were exposed to domestic violence in Father’s home and that they needed medical attention. [K.S.] could not protect the children because Father had full legal and physical custody and her parenting time was supervised by Court Order.
18. DCS offered services to [Mother]. [Mother] declined services. [Mother] appeared to want help, but she would not accept services without Father’s consent. DCS offered services to Father and Father refused to cooperate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 10 of 23 [Mother] was offered mental health assessment and services, domestic violence assessment and services.
19. Domestic violence was present in Father’s relationship with [Mother] and in Father’s relationship with [K.S.].
21. Constance Besner is also a Family Case Manager with Hendricks County DCS. (“FCM Besner”). The Court finds Ms. Besner credible. With Ms. Besner’s guidance, [Mother] did start working with home-based case management to learn how to keep the home organized and free from debris.
[Mother] did schedule an appointment concerning her mental health in November 2017. However, based on the totality of the evidence, the Court is convinced that [Mother’s] cooperation is contingent upon Father’s consent and approval.
The Court has observed Father and [Mother] in Court. Based on their demeanor and interaction[s] observed by the Court and with the evidence presented, the Court concludes that Father is a domineering individual. Father calls the shots in his home. Unless Father is required by the Court to participate in services for domestic violence, all four (4) children’s mental health is seriously impaired or seriously endangered.
24. Since removal, [P.M.] has received an IEP at school and was being assessed for trauma. He also receives additional
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 11 of 23 help for speech and understanding because he tested well below average for his age.
25. Father does not want to cooperate with DCS. Father will not cooperate without the coercive intervention of the Court.
Mother’s App. Vol. II pp. 56-58. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that
DCS proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the children’s “physical or
mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the
inability, refusal or neglect of [Parents] to supply the children with necessary
medical care, supervision free from domestic violence, and the children need
care, treatment and rehabilitation that they will not receive without the coercive
intervention of the Court.” Id. at 58. On March 7, the trial court held a
dispositional hearing and thereafter issued a dispositional order requiring
Father and Mother to participate in reunification services. DCS was awarded
wardship of the children. S.M. and E.M. were ordered to remain in the care
and custody of their maternal grandmother, and P.M. and A.M. were ordered
to remain in the care and custody of their foster parents.
[14] Father and Mother separately appeal.
Discussion and Decision [15] Father and Mother contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial
court’s determination that the children are CHINS. We consolidate their
arguments and address them as one where possible.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 12 of 23 [16] A CHINS proceeding focuses on the best interests of the children, not the guilt
or innocence of the parents. In re D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App.
2017). The purposes of a CHINS case are to help families in crisis and to
protect children, not to punish parents. Id. A CHINS proceeding is civil in
nature, so 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., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105
(Ind. 2010). Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 provides that a child is a CHINS
if, before the child becomes eighteen 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.
In other words, this statute requires “three basic elements: that the parent’s
actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child, that the child’s needs
are unmet, and . . . that those needs are unlikely to be met without State
coercion.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014), reh’g denied. The final
element “guards against unwarranted State interference in family life, reserving
that intrusion for families where parents lack the ability to provide for their
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 13 of 23 children, not merely where they encounter difficulty in meeting a child’s
needs.” Id.
[17] When determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a CHINS
determination, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the
witnesses. In re D.F., 83 N.E.3d 789, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Rather, we
consider only the evidence that supports the trial court’s determination and
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. There is no statute that expressly
requires formal findings in a CHINS fact-finding order. S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.
Where, as in this case, neither party requests findings under Indiana Trial Rule
52(A) and the trial court enters findings and conclusions sua sponte, we apply
the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and
whether the findings support the judgment for the issues covered by findings.
Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn
therefrom that support them. In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014). A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial
court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the resulting judgment.
Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 14 of 23 I. Findings of Fact [18] Father contends that the evidence does not support six of the trial court’s
twenty-seven findings.3 See Father’s Br. p. 17. First, Father challenges finding
15: “Father was very upset that [Mother] was talking to another man, i.e. FCM
Junkersfeld.” Father’s App. Vol. II p. 28. Father argues that he testified that
“[he] feared for the safety of his family” since he had heard on the radio that
“some guy . . . had been . . . impersonating a police officer[,]” not that Mother
was prohibited from speaking to men. Tr. Vol. II p. 165; see also Father’s Br. p.
17. However, FCM Junkersfeld testified that Father told him that “he doesn’t
like that another male is talking to [Mother] . . . .” Tr. Vol. II p.77; see also id. at
93-94. The trial court is free to choose whom to believe. Here, the trial court
found FCM Junkersfeld credible, and his testimony supports finding 15.
[19] Father then challenges findings 18, 25, and part of finding 21:
18. DCS offered services to [Mother]. [Mother] declined services. [Mother] appeared to want help, but she would not accept services without Father’s consent. DCS offered services to Father and Father refused to cooperate.
21. . . . [Mother] did schedule an appointment concerning her mental health in November 2017. However, based on the
3 In his brief, Father challenges paragraphs 28 and 29 as findings. But Paragraphs 28 and 29 are not “findings”; rather, they are conclusions of law.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 15 of 23 totality of evidence, the Court is convinced that [Mother’s] cooperation is contingent on Father’s consent and approval.
25. Father does not want to cooperate with DCS. Father will not cooperate without the coercive intervention of the Court.
Father’s App. Vol. II pp. 29-30. Father argues that he was “willing to cooperate
with [DCS] and was willing to obtain the necessary medical treatment.”
Father’s Br. p. 20. Father bases his argument his own testimony that he
planned on taking the children to get medical treatment, sought medical
treatment for himself without court order, and his refusal of drug screens was
permitted because he was not obligated to submit to a drug screen. See Tr. Vol.
II pp. 164-165. However, Father also testified that he is “stubborn” and “didn’t
see any services that [he] needed to take.” Id. at 167. FCM Junkersfeld testified
that Father had rejected all the services he offered the family and told him that
“[he and Mother] don’t want to do services.” Id. at 95. FCM Besner also
testified that when she took over the case, she continued to offer services and
that Father not only refused services but refused to even meet with her. See id.
at 106, 110. Father’s argument is a request to reweigh the evidence which we
will not do. See D.F., 83 N.E.3d at 796. Here, the trial court chose to believe
the testimonies of FCMs Junkersfeld and Besner (both of whom the trial court
found credible), which support findings 18, 25, and this part of finding 21.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 16 of 23 [20] Father next challenges findings 17, 19, and a second part of finding 21:
17. [K.S.] expressed concern that [E.M. and S.M.] were exposed to domestic violence in Father’s home and that they needed medical attention. [K.S.] could not protect the children because Father had full legal and physical custody and her parenting time was supervised by Court Order.
19. Domestic violence was present in Father’s relationship with [Mother] and in Father’s relationship with [K.S.].
21. . . . Unless Father is required by the Court to participate in services for domestic violence, all four (4) children’s mental health is seriously impaired or endangered.
Father’s App. Vol. II p. 29. Father argues that “there was no evidence
presented that Father had committed domestic violence or that the children
were subjected to or exposed to domestic violence.” Father’s Br. pp. 18, 20.
However, FCM Besner testified during the fact-finding hearing that E.M., S.M.,
and P.M. were receiving counseling for domestic violence and that K.S. told
her that Father “hit her regularly” during their marriage and that “she was
worried about the domestic violence.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 106-107. FCM Besner
also testified that “[Mother] asked me if I could have the domestic violence
people call her” because “in her past, she has experienced, um, domestic
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 17 of 23 violence.” Id. at 109, 121. Although Mother testified that she was not a victim
of domestic violence and had requested domestic-violence counseling because
she “wanted to [do] whatever it took to get [her] kids back,” id. at 148, and
Father testified that any allegation that he committed domestic violence was
false and “absurd,” id. at 172, the trial court is free to choose whom to believe.
In this case, the trial court found FCM Besner credible and her testimony
supports findings 17, 19, and this part of finding 21.
[21] Last, Father challenges the final part of finding 21:
21. The Court has observed Father and [Mother] in Court. Based on their demeanor and interaction observed by the Court and with the evidence presented, the Court concludes that Father is a domineering individual. Father calls the shots in his home.
Father’s App. Vol. II p. 29. Father argues that “[t]he trial court provides no
evidence or testimony to support its finding that Father is a domineering
individual or what the trial court observed that would lead the Court to this
finding.” Father’s Br. p. 21. However, during the fact-finding hearing, Mother
testified that she suffered from a personality disorder that made her “depend on
[Father] for everything.” Tr. Vol. II p. 151. FCM Junkersfeld testified that
Father “very irate[ly] . . . told me to get out of the home. [Father] doesn’t want
[Mother] talking to another male . . . .” Id. at 93. FCM Junkersfeld also
testified that Father said “the children will not be seen” and Mother could not
take the children to the doctor without Father’s consent. Id. at 77. The trial
court also had the chance to observe Father and Mother in court and saw how Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 18 of 23 Father treats Mother. As a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and
deference to trial courts in family-law matters. D.P., 72 N.E.3d at 980. This
deference recognizes a trial court’s unique ability to see the witnesses, observe
their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this Court’s only
being able to review a cold transcript of the record. Id. Here, we will not
second-guess the trial court’s observation that Father controls Mother and is the
decision-maker in the family. As such, the final part of finding 21 is supported
by the testimonies of Mother and FCM Junkersfeld, and by the trial court’s own
observation of how Father controls Mother.
[22] Therefore, we find that all of the trial court’s findings that are challenged by
Father are supported by facts and reasonable inferences.
II. Conclusions of Law [23] Father and Mother also argue that the trial court erred in determining that
S.M.’s, E.M.’s, P.M.’s and A.M.’s physical or mental condition is seriously
impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect
of Parents to supply the children with necessary medical care and supervision
free from domestic violence, and that the children need care, treatment, and
rehabilitation that they will not receive without the coercive intervention of the
court.
[24] First, Father and Mother challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the
children’s physical or mental conditions are seriously impaired or endangered
by Parents’ refusal or neglect to provide their children with medical care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 19 of 23 Mother argues that “mere delay in taking one’s children to obtain medical care
is not sufficient for the State to then determine that the child is in need of
services,” Mother’s Br. p. 18, and Father argues that he planned on taking the
children to get medical treatment, see Father’s Br. p. 26. However, neither
Father nor Mother challenges the trial court’s findings 12 (that A.M. had
bruises all over her body and P.M. was covered in scabs from head to toe), 14
(that Father refused to allow the children to receive medical treatment), or 16
(that A.M. and P.M. were diagnosed with and treated for scabies). Any
unchallenged findings stand as proven. See B.R., 875 N.E.2d at 373. As such,
unchallenged findings 12, 14, and 16 support the trial court’s conclusion that
the children’s physical or mental conditions are seriously impaired or
endangered by Parent’s refusal or neglect to provide the children with medical
care. We could stop here because this conclusion alone (that the children
needed medical care that was not provided until DCS intervened) is sufficient to
uphold the trial court’s CHINS determination, but we will continue and address
Parents’ remaining challenges to the trial court’s conclusions.
[25] Next, Father and Mother challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the
children’s physical or mental conditions are seriously impaired or endangered
by Parent’s inability, refusal, or neglect to provide the children with supervision
free from domestic violence. Mother argues that “no evidence was presented of
current domestic battery,” and “the only hint of current domestic battery was
Mother’s request for domestic battery counseling.” Mother’s Br. p. 21. Father
argues that “there were no facts that [the children] had been subjected to or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 20 of 23 exposed to domestic violence.” Father’s Br. p. 25. However, neither Father
nor Mother challenges the trial court’s findings 11 or 24:
11. Since they were removed from the home, [S.M.] and [E.M.] have been involved in cognitive behavior therapy to help them work through the trauma they have suffered during their childhood. Their trauma primarily relates to domestic violence in the home.
24. Since removal, [P.M.] . . . was being assessed for trauma.
Father’s App. Vol. II pp. 28-29. Again, any unchallenged findings stand as
proven, see B.R., 875 N.E.2d at 373, and a child’s exposure to domestic violence
can support a CHINS finding, see N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. Furthermore, the
domestic-violence findings challenged by Father (i.e., findings 15, 17, 19, and
parts of finding 21) support the trial court’s conclusion that Parents cannot
provide the children with supervision free from domestic violence. To
summarize the findings, the following the evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion that there is domestic violence in Parents’ household: (1) Father “hit
[K.S.] regularly” during their marriage; (2) Mother requested to speak with “the
domestic violence people” because “in her past, she has experienced . . .
domestic violence”; (3) Father “[did not] like that another male [was] talking to
[Mother]”; (4) Mother is controlled by Father and depends on him “for
everything”; (5) Mother could not take the children to the doctor because
Father controls when the children can get medical attention and refused to let
his children be seen; (6) S.M., E.M., and P.M. have all been referred to
cognitive behavioral therapy because of trauma related to domestic violence; Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 21 of 23 and (7) the trial court saw Father’s treatment of Mother and observed him to be
a “domineering individual.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 93-94, 106, 109, 121, 151. It is
clear from the findings that Father has a controlling nature, which is a sign of
domestic violence. Therefore, everything taken together—Father’s controlling
nature, the unchallenged findings (11 and 24), and the domestic-violence
findings challenged by Father (i.e., findings 15, 17, 19, and parts of finding
21)—supports the trial court’s conclusion that the children’s physical or mental
conditions are seriously impaired or endangered by Parent’s inability, refusal,
or neglect to provide the children with supervision free from domestic violence.
[26] Last, Father and Mother challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the children
need care, treatment, and rehabilitation that they would not receive without the
coercive intervention of the court. Mother argues that “DCS failed to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that . . . [the children’s] needs were unlikely to
be met without the State’s coercion,” Mother’s Br. p. 15, and Father argues that
DCS “did not prove Father was not willing to participate in necessary
recommended services without the coercive intervention of the Court,” Father’s
Br. p. 25. However, findings 18 (that Mother would not accept services without
Father’s consent and Father refused services) and 25 (that Father does not want
to cooperate with DCS) support the trial court’s conclusion that the coercive
intervention of the court is necessary to ensure the needs of the children are
met.
[27] We conclude that the trial court’s determination that S.M., E.M., P.M., and
A.M. are CHINS is not erroneous.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 22 of 23 [28] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-822 | November 1, 2018 Page 23 of 23