FILED Mar 28 2025, 9:04 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana K.M., Appellant-Petitioner
v.
Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Respondent
March 28, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-XP-1783 Appeal from the Wabash Circuit Court The Honorable Robert R. McCallen III, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 85C01-2309-XP-585
Opinion by Judge Weissmann Judges Pyle and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 1 of 10 Weissmann, Judge.
[1] After the infant daughter (Child) of K.M. (Mother) arrived at a hospital with
broken bones, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) substantiated
abuse allegations. Mother also faced criminal charges for alleged neglect of
Child. But a more in-depth medical evaluation revealed Child suffered from a
genetic condition that can predispose individuals to bone fragility fractures and
that both Mother and Child’s father carried the gene. Because of this diagnosis,
DCS sought and obtained dismissal of the CHINS case, and the State dropped
the criminal charges against Mother. Yet the trial court later refused to expunge
the DCS records relating to the incorrect substantiation, ruling that the
demonstrably false allegations might have some future probative value for DCS.
Finding this conclusion against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances, we reverse.
Facts [2] Mother delivered Child in 2016 with difficulty. Child became stuck in the birth
canal after her head was outside Mother’s body, and the doctor had to pull
Child out. Child was very ill during the first 11 weeks of her life. She had
difficulty keeping liquids down, and she flushed easily and sweated profusely.
Child’s body was very flexible, lacked muscle strength, and showed
unexplained bruising.
[3] When Child was about two months old, Mother and her then husband (Father)
found Child unresponsive. Mother attempted chest compressions to resuscitate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 2 of 10 Child before an ambulance arrived to take Child to the hospital. The hospital
determined that Child had two rib fractures, as well as bilateral clavicle
fractures.
[4] DCS thereafter received a report about Child’s healing fractures. Initial medical
evaluations ruled out trauma from birth and metabolic disorders, leading to a
presumption of non-accidental injury. DCS petitioned to find Child to be a
child in need of services (CHINS) and removed her from her parents’ care.
[5] Criminal charges for neglect of a dependent were filed in April 2016 against
Mother and Father. Father ultimately pleaded guilty under a plea agreement
that required the State’s dismissal of Mother’s charges.
[6] While the CHINS petition was pending, Mother and Father arranged to have
Child evaluated by Dr. Michael Holick, who was associated with the Boston
University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center. Dr. Holick
diagnosed Child with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) type 3. EDS is a genetic
condition that can predispose individuals to fractures due to bone fragility. Dr.
Holick, an expert on EDS, diagnosed both Mother and Father with the
condition as well. Child’s pediatrician agreed with that diagnosis.
[7] Based on the EDS diagnosis, DCS moved to dismiss the CHINS petition about
a year after it was filed. DCS alleged:
In light of the lack of present safety concerns for the children, the fact that the parents have demonstrated their ability [to] provide for the medical needs of the children, and, in part, the medical findings of Dr. Holick, the DCS does not believe that the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 3 of 10 coercive intervention of the court is any longer necessary in this matter. The circumstances that initially resulted in the filing of the petition alleging the children are children in need of services have substantially changed and there is no longer a legally sufficient basis to proceed under this cause.
Exhs. Vol. II, p. 4. The CHINS court granted the motion and dismissed
the CHINS action. Child was returned to Mother’s care and has
remained there without incident for the past eight years.
[8] Mother’s and Father’s subsequent administrative appeal of the DCS
substantiation of abuse was unsuccessful. The substantiation therefore remains
in DCS records and has resulted in Mother being placed on the Child
Protection Index, a database that tracks perpetrators of substantiated abuse.
These DCS records impinged Mother’s efforts to participate in her children’s
school activities. For instance, she is not allowed to serve as an escort on her
children’s field trips due to the DCS substantiation.
[9] The DCS records also limited her efforts to pursue employment opportunities in
education and childcare. Mother received job offers from a daycare facility and
as a teacher’s aide at Child’s school, but both offers were withdrawn due to
Mother’s placement on the Child Protection Index (CPI)—a database that
includes the names of child abuse perpetrators—because of DCS’s abuse
substantiation. Each of the two employers told Mother that she could have the
job if this substantiation “was taken care of.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 25.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 4 of 10 [10] Mother soon petitioned to expunge the DCS records. Under Indiana Code § 31-
33-27-5 (Expungement Statute), a court may order DCS to expunge a
substantiated report if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (1)
there is little likelihood the petitioner will be a perpetrator of abuse or neglect in
the future; and (2) the information contained in DCS records has insufficient
probative value to justify its retention.
[11] At the hearing on Mother’s petition, the local DCS director asked the court to
deny the expungement. She reported that the DCS records were necessary in
case another abuse incident involving Mother occurred. The court also heard
testimony from Dr. Holick, who revealed the EDS diagnosis for Child, who
was then eight years old.
[12] The trial court denied the expungement petition in a written order. Viewing Dr.
Holick’s credentials as “impeccable,” the court found “credible and persuasive”
his testimony that Child suffered from EDS. App. Vol. II, p. 19. The court did
“not believe [Mother] has ever been a perpetrator of abuse or neglect.” Id. “By
all accounts, [Mother] is an excellent mother who went to great lengths to
determine the cause of her child’s injuries,” according to the court. Id. It
concluded that Mother had proven by clear and convincing evidence the first
prong of the Expungement Statute, given that there was little likelihood Mother
would be a future perpetrator of abuse or neglect.
[13] Yet the court then found that “despite the fact the Court does not believe
Petitioner poses any threat whatsoever to her or any other children,” Mother’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 5 of 10 desire “to obtain employment at her children’s school and/or in childcare”
meant that the information that she sought to expunge “would or could have
significant probative value.” Id. The court therefore concluded that clear and
convincing evidence did not support the second prong of the Expungement
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED Mar 28 2025, 9:04 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana K.M., Appellant-Petitioner
v.
Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Respondent
March 28, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-XP-1783 Appeal from the Wabash Circuit Court The Honorable Robert R. McCallen III, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 85C01-2309-XP-585
Opinion by Judge Weissmann Judges Pyle and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 1 of 10 Weissmann, Judge.
[1] After the infant daughter (Child) of K.M. (Mother) arrived at a hospital with
broken bones, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) substantiated
abuse allegations. Mother also faced criminal charges for alleged neglect of
Child. But a more in-depth medical evaluation revealed Child suffered from a
genetic condition that can predispose individuals to bone fragility fractures and
that both Mother and Child’s father carried the gene. Because of this diagnosis,
DCS sought and obtained dismissal of the CHINS case, and the State dropped
the criminal charges against Mother. Yet the trial court later refused to expunge
the DCS records relating to the incorrect substantiation, ruling that the
demonstrably false allegations might have some future probative value for DCS.
Finding this conclusion against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances, we reverse.
Facts [2] Mother delivered Child in 2016 with difficulty. Child became stuck in the birth
canal after her head was outside Mother’s body, and the doctor had to pull
Child out. Child was very ill during the first 11 weeks of her life. She had
difficulty keeping liquids down, and she flushed easily and sweated profusely.
Child’s body was very flexible, lacked muscle strength, and showed
unexplained bruising.
[3] When Child was about two months old, Mother and her then husband (Father)
found Child unresponsive. Mother attempted chest compressions to resuscitate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 2 of 10 Child before an ambulance arrived to take Child to the hospital. The hospital
determined that Child had two rib fractures, as well as bilateral clavicle
fractures.
[4] DCS thereafter received a report about Child’s healing fractures. Initial medical
evaluations ruled out trauma from birth and metabolic disorders, leading to a
presumption of non-accidental injury. DCS petitioned to find Child to be a
child in need of services (CHINS) and removed her from her parents’ care.
[5] Criminal charges for neglect of a dependent were filed in April 2016 against
Mother and Father. Father ultimately pleaded guilty under a plea agreement
that required the State’s dismissal of Mother’s charges.
[6] While the CHINS petition was pending, Mother and Father arranged to have
Child evaluated by Dr. Michael Holick, who was associated with the Boston
University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center. Dr. Holick
diagnosed Child with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) type 3. EDS is a genetic
condition that can predispose individuals to fractures due to bone fragility. Dr.
Holick, an expert on EDS, diagnosed both Mother and Father with the
condition as well. Child’s pediatrician agreed with that diagnosis.
[7] Based on the EDS diagnosis, DCS moved to dismiss the CHINS petition about
a year after it was filed. DCS alleged:
In light of the lack of present safety concerns for the children, the fact that the parents have demonstrated their ability [to] provide for the medical needs of the children, and, in part, the medical findings of Dr. Holick, the DCS does not believe that the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 3 of 10 coercive intervention of the court is any longer necessary in this matter. The circumstances that initially resulted in the filing of the petition alleging the children are children in need of services have substantially changed and there is no longer a legally sufficient basis to proceed under this cause.
Exhs. Vol. II, p. 4. The CHINS court granted the motion and dismissed
the CHINS action. Child was returned to Mother’s care and has
remained there without incident for the past eight years.
[8] Mother’s and Father’s subsequent administrative appeal of the DCS
substantiation of abuse was unsuccessful. The substantiation therefore remains
in DCS records and has resulted in Mother being placed on the Child
Protection Index, a database that tracks perpetrators of substantiated abuse.
These DCS records impinged Mother’s efforts to participate in her children’s
school activities. For instance, she is not allowed to serve as an escort on her
children’s field trips due to the DCS substantiation.
[9] The DCS records also limited her efforts to pursue employment opportunities in
education and childcare. Mother received job offers from a daycare facility and
as a teacher’s aide at Child’s school, but both offers were withdrawn due to
Mother’s placement on the Child Protection Index (CPI)—a database that
includes the names of child abuse perpetrators—because of DCS’s abuse
substantiation. Each of the two employers told Mother that she could have the
job if this substantiation “was taken care of.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 25.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 4 of 10 [10] Mother soon petitioned to expunge the DCS records. Under Indiana Code § 31-
33-27-5 (Expungement Statute), a court may order DCS to expunge a
substantiated report if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (1)
there is little likelihood the petitioner will be a perpetrator of abuse or neglect in
the future; and (2) the information contained in DCS records has insufficient
probative value to justify its retention.
[11] At the hearing on Mother’s petition, the local DCS director asked the court to
deny the expungement. She reported that the DCS records were necessary in
case another abuse incident involving Mother occurred. The court also heard
testimony from Dr. Holick, who revealed the EDS diagnosis for Child, who
was then eight years old.
[12] The trial court denied the expungement petition in a written order. Viewing Dr.
Holick’s credentials as “impeccable,” the court found “credible and persuasive”
his testimony that Child suffered from EDS. App. Vol. II, p. 19. The court did
“not believe [Mother] has ever been a perpetrator of abuse or neglect.” Id. “By
all accounts, [Mother] is an excellent mother who went to great lengths to
determine the cause of her child’s injuries,” according to the court. Id. It
concluded that Mother had proven by clear and convincing evidence the first
prong of the Expungement Statute, given that there was little likelihood Mother
would be a future perpetrator of abuse or neglect.
[13] Yet the court then found that “despite the fact the Court does not believe
Petitioner poses any threat whatsoever to her or any other children,” Mother’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 5 of 10 desire “to obtain employment at her children’s school and/or in childcare”
meant that the information that she sought to expunge “would or could have
significant probative value.” Id. The court therefore concluded that clear and
convincing evidence did not support the second prong of the Expungement
Statute and denied expungement on that basis. Mother appeals.
Discussion and Decision [14] We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s denial of an expungement
of substantiated records of neglect or abuse. B.T. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 172, 174
(Ind. Ct. App. 2023). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or
when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. “In reaching this decision, we
neither reweigh evidence nor assess witness credibility.” Id.
[15] Only the second prong of the Expungement Statute—“the information has
insufficient current probative value to justify its retention in records of the
department for future reference”—is at issue on appeal. Ind. Code § 31-33-27-
5(f)(2). For several reasons, we find the trial court abused its discretion by
determining that the records retained probative value solely because Mother
might seek future employment with children.
[16] First, the medical evidence comprehensively established, and the trial court
found, that Child’s injuries resulted from an undiagnosed genetic condition
rather than abuse. Multiple medical professionals confirmed Child suffered
from EDS. Dr. Holick opined that the fractures that hospital personnel detected
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 6 of 10 when Child was two months old were likely caused by birth trauma and
emergency resuscitation efforts.
[17] DCS itself determined this evidence, combined with other circumstances, was
sufficiently compelling to seek dismissal of the CHINS case. The State
dismissed the criminal charges against Mother as well, and those charges were
later expunged. The trial court here explicitly found it did not believe Mother
had ever perpetrated abuse. Records of a DCS substantiation that has been
medically refuted and that the trial court specifically found were untrue carry
minimal, if any, probative value.
[18] Second, the trial court’s reasoning that the records have probative value simply
because Mother might work with children in the future effectively bars relief for
falsely accused parents hoping to participate in the education or care of
children, including their own. This overly broad interpretation would frustrate
the remedial purpose of the Expungement Statute. See generally Ball v. State, 165
N.E.3d 130, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“The expungement statutes are
inherently remedial, and as such, should be liberally construed to advance the
remedy for which they were enacted.”).
[19] Third, the evidence presented to the trial court demonstrates the DCS records
are hampering Mother’s ability to be involved in her own children’s education
and activities. Yet the trial court acknowledged Mother’s history of “excellent”
parenting. App. Vol. II, p. 19. Where, as here, the trial court has found both
that the petitioner presents no future risk and that the claims of abuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 7 of 10 underlying the CHINS action were erroneous, allowing the records to continue
restricting a parent’s engagement with their children’s schooling does not serve
the child protection purposes of the CPI. See, e.g., Ind. Code §§ 31-33-26-2
through 31-33-26-16 (requiring DCS to maintain a database of “substantiated
reports of child abuse and neglect” that is available to certain entities tasked
with caring for or protecting children). The court explicitly found that Mother
posed no threat to her own or other children.
[20] The trial court’s finding that one of the two requirements of the Expungement
Statute was not met has the unfortunate effect of ensuring that Mother’s name
will remain on the CPI. As the CPI essentially labels Mother a child abuser but
the trial court found Mother is not one, this outcome is the functional
equivalent of finding a criminal defendant not guilty but sending the defendant
to jail anyway.
[21] It simply defies logic to conclude that information proven to be false retains
probative value in determining the fitness of the person against whom the false
allegation was lodged. The essence of probative value lies in the information’s
relevance. See Shane v. State, 716 N.E.2d 391, 398 (Ind. 1999) (“Put simply,
relevant evidence is probative evidence.”); Ind. Evidence Rule 401 (“Evidence
is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probative than
it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.”). Accusations of child abuse that are expressly found
by a court to be untrue are not relevant to the falsely accused person’s fitness to
be around children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 8 of 10 [22] Here, medical evidence has established, and the trial court found, that Child’s
injuries were caused by a genetic condition, not abuse. Maintaining records of a
demonstrably false substantiation not only serves no legitimate evidentiary
purpose but also could potentially mislead or disrupt future investigations by
preserving disproven conclusions. Under these circumstances, these DCS
records merely prove the falsely accused parent suffered an injustice that a
denial of expungement only prolongs.
Conclusion [23] In light of the trial court’s finding that the abuse allegations were false, its
accompanying determination that the false allegations have current probative
value is inconsistent and against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it. As Mother met her burden of proving both elements of
the Expungement Statute by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude the
trial court abused its discretion in denying expungement. We reverse and
remand with instructions to grant Mother’s petition for expungement of the
DCS substantiation.
Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Rebecca M. Collins Plymouth, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 9 of 10 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-XP-1783 | March 28, 2025 Page 10 of 10