In Re: the Matter of: J.S.B. (1), J.S.B. (2), and J.B. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and S.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 17 2017, 6:18 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Gregory L. Fumarolo Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: the Matter of: October 17, 2017
J.S.B.(1), J.S.B.(2), and J.B. Court of Appeals Case No.
(Minor Children), Children in 02A03-1704-JC-781
Need of Services, Appeal from the Allen Superior
and Court
The Honorable Charles F. Pratt,
S.M. (Mother), Judge
Appellant-Respondent, Trial Court Cause Nos.
02D08-1607-JC-305
v. 02D08-1607-JC-306
02D08-1607-JC-307
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 1 of 9
[1] S.M. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating her three children,
J.S.B.(1), J.S.B.(2), and J.B., to be Children in Need of Services (CHINS).
Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS
adjudication. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Mother is the single mother of three children: J.S.B.(1) and J.S.B.(2), who are
twins born on December 19, 1999, and J.B., who was born on January 24,
2002.
[3] All three children have been in legal trouble at some point. In November 2015,
J.S.B.(2) was on an informal adjustment probation for theft. In March 2016,
she moved to formal probation following probation violations and a new charge
of disorderly conduct. Her probation included case management services and
individual therapy. J.S.B.(2) was also being electronically monitored; despite
such monitoring, she escaped from home detention and the Youth Services
Center, where she was residing after being removed from Mother’s home.
J.S.B.(1) and J.B. have also been under juvenile probation supervision.
[4] On July 5, 2016, Mother called Department of Child Services (DCS) because
she “was overwhelmed with some of the stuff going on in my home.”
Factfinding Tr. p. 7. Mother asked DCS for services for her three daughters
because she did not believe that there were “enough services to help out with
what was going on.” Id. DCS intake worker Haley Hunter went to Mother’s
home to speak with Mother. Hunter observed that the children “seemed very
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 9
desensitized to everything. Like . . . nothing extreme was going on even though
there was a lot of chaos in the home.” Id. at 88. Mother told Hunter that the
children were disrespectful to her and unruly. During Hunter’s visit, Mother
and the children got into an argument because Mother thought one of the
children had stolen her cigarettes. Mother told Hunter that, regarding physical
fights, if one of her children “were to touch her that she would touch the other
one back.” Id. at 83. Mother also stated that “she would lock herself in her
room just to get away from them.” Id.
[5] While Hunter was at Mother’s home, J.S.B.(1) told Hunter that she was not
getting along with Mother; she also stated that she had an infection or may
have been pregnant, and although she asked Mother about seeing a doctor,
Mother refused to take her. Mother confirmed that she would not be willing to
take J.S.B.(1) to the doctor. J.B. told Hunter that “she wasn’t afraid of her
mom because . . . stuff like this happened on a regular basis.” Id. at 81. Both
J.S.B.(1) and J.B. stated that Mother smokes Spice, a synthetic cannabinoid.
Hunter also learned that Mother would lock the bathroom doors and allow the
children to shower only at certain times.
[6] Following her visit, Hunter put Stop Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) services1
in place. Before SCAN arrived, Mother called the police to report that one of
1
The SCAN worker who visited Mother’s home was a Family Preservation Coach with SCAN’s Intensive
Intervention Team. That SCAN team visits homes with the goal of keeping children in the home. It works
to ensure that a family has the resources that it needs, focusing both on skills such as parenting, budgeting,
and cleaning skills, and on material resources such as furniture and clothes. Factfinding Tr. p. 96.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 9
her children had run away. That night, when SCAN went to Mother’s house
for an intake with Mother and the children, SCAN observed that J.B. was
abusive toward Mother, calling her names and telling her that she was crazy for
calling the police. Mother told SCAN that she had dreamed about the children
hurting her while she was asleep. At some point that same night, Hunter
received a text message from SCAN stating that the home environment was
chaotic.
[7] The next day, July 6, 2016, Fort Wayne Police Officer Fritz Rommel was called
to Mother’s house for a domestic dispute; Mother had stated that she wanted
the children to leave the home. Mother also stated that her daughters “were out
of control, disrespectful, cussing at her . . . . [S]he said she was fed up and tired
and didn’t want them in the home anymore.” Id. at 54-55. Officer Rommel
called Hunter, who returned to Mother’s home. Mother told Hunter that she
wanted the children out of the house. The children were removed from the
home and taken to Youth Services Center. Following the removal, Hunter
interviewed J.S.B.(2), who had not been present during Hunter’s visit to
Mother’s home the day before. J.S.B.(2) stated that she was not getting along
with Mother and that Mother smokes Spice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 4 of 9
[8] On July 27, 2016, DCS filed an amended petition alleging the children to be
CHINS. A factfinding hearing took place on October 24, 2016,2 and the trial
court adjudicated all three children to be CHINS. At some point following this
adjudication, the children returned to Mother’s home. On February 1, 2017, a
dispositional hearing took place.3 That same day, the trial court issued a
dispositional order that ordered Mother and the children to participate in
reunification services. Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[9] Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
determination that J.S.B.(1), J.S.B.(2), and J.B. are CHINS. 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
2
Indiana Code section 31-34-11-1 requires a factfinding hearing to take place not more than sixty days after
the filing of a petition alleging a child to be a CHINS unless all parties consent to an extension of an
additional sixty days. Here, the parties consented to additional time.
3
Indiana Code section 31-34-19-1 requires a dispositional hearing to take place not more than thirty days
after a trial court adjudicates a child to be a CHINS. In this case, the dispositional hearing took place more
than ninety days after the CHINS adjudication. Although Mother did not raise the issue, we take this
opportunity to remind the trial court to follow the timeline for CHINS adjudications set forth by our General
Assembly.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 5 of 9
Pub. Welfare, 592N.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
upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly
erroneous. Id.In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253-54 (Ind. 2012) (footnote omitted).
[10] Here, DCS alleged that the children are 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.
[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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 6 of 9
needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283,
1287 (Ind. 2014).
II. Sufficiency
[12] Mother argues that the evidence was insufficient to show neglect on her part or
that she needed the trial court’s coercive intervention to resolve the family’s
problems.
[13] While the dysfunction that Mother and the children face is not the worst of the
worst, Mother has admitted that she cannot control her children. J.S.B.(1),
J.S.B.(2), and J.B. have all faced legal trouble at some point in their young lives.
Even electronic monitoring did not foster in J.S.B.(2) respect for authority, and
she escaped from both home detention and the Youth Services Center while on
it. Mother admitted to being overwhelmed by the children’s behavior and told
Officer Rommel that she did not want them in her home. Mother also admitted
that she would lock herself in her room in order to get away from the children
and that she was concerned about them stealing from her. J.S.B.(1) stated that
Mother refused to take her to a doctor for medical care. The children were
desensitized to the level of chaos that permeated their home. J.S.B.(1) and
J.S.B.(2) both reported that they were not getting along with Mother. J.B.
stated that she was not afraid of Mother, and SCAN observed J.B. yelling at
Mother and calling her names. In short, the children’s needs for adequate
supervision and care are unmet in Mother’s home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 7 of 9
[14] Moreover, the children’s unmet needs are unlikely to be provided for without
the coercive intervention of the court. While we recognize that Mother
contacted DCS specifically to get help for the problems in her family, we note
that, in order to try to get the help that she needs, she had to turn to a state
agency. In other words, she was not able to obtain sufficient help on her own
without the State’s aid. This family needs support and services to become
functional. Court intervention, therefore, is necessary to prevent the family’s
situation from getting completely out of hand; without it, needed services likely
would not be available for Mother and the children. Accordingly, we find no
error with the trial court’s conclusion that the children need care that they are
not receiving and are unlikely to receive without the coercive intervention of the
court.
[15] Lastly, we note that the trial court did not address in its order whether the
children’s physical or mental conditions are “seriously impaired or seriously
endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child[ren]’s
parent . . . to supply the child[ren] with necessary food, clothing, shelter,
medical care, education, or supervision[.]” I.C. § 31–34–1–1(1). While we find
no statutory requirement that the trial court explicitly address this prong of the
CHINS statute, our appellate review would benefit from the trial court’s doing
so.
[16] In this case, however, despite the trial court’s lack of findings specifically
addressing the children’s physical or mental conditions, the totality of the
record shows that a finding could have been made. Mother’s inability to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 8 of 9
provide necessary supervision to her children seriously endangers them.
Indeed, during Mother’s attempt to secure help, she called the police to report
that one of her children had run away; another time, J.S.B.(2) escaped from the
Youth Services Center while being electronically monitored. In addition,
Mother refused to take J.S.B.(1) to the doctor. Mother also reported that she
would lock herself in her room to get away from the children—meaning that
there were times when she made herself unavailable for her children solely for
the purpose of being unavailable, and there is no evidence in the record that
shows that Mother made an effort to provide appropriate supervision for her
children during those times.
[17] This family needs help managing the children’s behavior, and the CHINS
adjudication and services that go along with it will provide them with the
assistance that they need.
[18] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1704-JC-781| October 17, 2017 Page 9 of 9