In the Matter of R.G., A Child Alleged to be In Need of Services, T.N. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2021 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 07 2021, 8:25 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jennifer A. Joas Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney at Law Attorney General
Madison, Indiana Alan K. Davis
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of R.G., a Child January 7, 2021
Alleged to be in Need of Court of Appeals Case No.
Services, 20A-JC-1379
T.N. (Mother), Appeal from the
Scott Circuit Court
Appellant-Respondent,
The Honorable
v. Marsha Owens Howser, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Indiana Department of Child 72D01-1911-JC-96
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] T.N. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s determination that her son, R.G.
(“Child”), is a Child in Need of Services (CHINS). Concluding the evidence
presented to the trial court did not support its finding, we reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and C.G. (“Father”) are the biological parents of Child, born in
September 2014. Father stipulated Child is a CHINS and does not participate in
this appeal. Mother also has a daughter, A.N., from a prior relationship.
[3] On October 30, 2019, the Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report
Child and A.N. were “victims of [n]eglect in the form of being exposed to
domestic violence.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 12. The report alleged Mother
had committed domestic violence against her boyfriend (“Boyfriend”).
Specifically, the report alleged Mother punched Boyfriend repeatedly in the face
in front of the children and “pulled a butcher knife on him.” Id. On November
1, Family Case Manager (FCM) Mercedes Smith investigated the report.
Finding the domestic-violence allegations to be “factual” against Mother, FCM
Smith removed Child and A.N. from the home. 1 Id. at 13. Child was placed
with Father.
1
Mother is not appealing the proceedings involving A.N.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 2 of 7
[4] On November 6, DCS filed a petition alleging Child is a CHINS. In February
2020, the trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing. Only two caseworkers
testified. FCM Smith testified as to the domestic-abuse allegations against
Mother and the investigation into those allegations. FCM Smith generally
testified as to her understanding of the incident—Boyfriend’s daughter and
Mother argued and when Boyfriend intervened Mother pulled a butcher knife
on him. Either Mother or Boyfriend then threw the knife in the sink, and
Mother punched Boyfriend four or five times in the head. As to the specifics of
what she was told, FCM Smith stated Boyfriend told her Mother “smacked him
in the face.” Tr. Vol. II p. 9. Finally, she related Boyfriend’s teenage son told
her Mother “pull[ed] out the butcher [knife]” on Boyfriend and “there was also
a gun involved,” Mother “drinks every night,” and “he was afraid to [go]
home” because of Mother’s behavior. Id at 10. The second witness, FCM
Stephanie Hale, testified only as to Mother’s participation in services after
Child’s removal. The trial court found Child is a CHINS “based upon the
testimony I’ve heard today[.]” Id. at 15.
[5] Later that month, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Child a CHINS
under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. The order includes findings and
conclusions, stating in part:
4) Mother has ongoing mental health issues that affect her ability
to provide adequate care, treatment, and supervision of the child.
5) Mother is in need of services to address the issue of mental
health.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 3 of 7
6) The family would not receive services without the coercive
intervention of the Court.
7) The child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that Mother
is unable to supply, which would not likely be provided without
the coercive intervention of the Court.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 33-34.
[6] Mother now appeals.2
Discussion and Decision
[7] Mother argues the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing is insufficient
to support the CHINS determination. Here, the trial court entered findings and
conclusions sua sponte. Therefore, our review is governed by Indiana Trial
Rule 52(A). Matter of N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “For issues
covered by the [trial] court’s findings, we first consider whether the evidence
supports the factual findings and then consider whether those findings support
the [trial] court’s judgment.” Id. We will set aside the findings or judgment only
if they are clearly erroneous. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous when there are
no facts in the record to support them[.]” Id. We review any remaining issues
under the general-judgment standard, under which a judgment “will be affirmed
2
On August 5, 2020, DCS requested its wardship over Child be terminated after Father was given custody of
Child. The trial court terminated wardship the following day. This does not render the matter moot,
however, as a CHINS adjudication can have other ramifications on parents. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283,
1290 (Ind. 2014), reh’g denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 4 of 7
if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” In re S.D.,
2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259,
1262 (Ind. 1997)), reh’g denied.
[8] The trial court found Child is a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1,
which provides a child is a CHINS if that child is under eighteen and:
(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:
(A) when the parent, guardian, or custodian is financially
able to do so; or
(B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent,
guardian, or custodian to seek financial or other
reasonable means to do so; and
(2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that the
child:
(A) is not receiving; and
(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court.
DCS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the child is a CHINS. Ind.
Code § 31-34-12-3. In sum, a CHINS adjudication “requires three basic
elements: that the parent’s actions or inactions have seriously endangered the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 5 of 7
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 at
1287. Mother asserts DCS failed to show all three elements. We agree as to the
first element, so we need not address Mother’s remaining arguments.
[9] The trial court found “Mother has ongoing mental health issues that affect her
ability to provide adequate care, treatment, and supervision of the child.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 33. Although the trial court did not have to enter
findings, “once the trial court walks down the path of making findings, it is
bound under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) to make findings that support the
judgment.” In re C.M., 960 N.E.2d 169, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Parks
v. Delaware Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 862 N.E.2d 1275, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007), superseded by statute on other grounds), aff’d on reh’g, 963 N.E.2d 528 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2012). No evidence as to Mother’s mental health was presented at the
fact-finding hearing. The only evidence admitted was the testimony of the two
FCMs, neither of whom addressed Mother’s mental health. The only evidence
in the record even suggesting Mother had a mental-health problem was the
original report made to DCS, which claimed Mother was mentally unstable.
But DCS offered no proof of this allegation—and didn’t even mention it—at the
fact-finding hearing.
[10] DCS contends the trial court “reasonably infer[red]” Mother had mental-health
issues that endangered Child based on the domestic-violence allegations and
Boyfriend’s son’s statement she drinks every night. Appellee’s Br. p. 17. To be
sure, domestic violence and excessive drinking can suggest mental-health issues.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 6 of 7
However, we do not have enough facts to support that here. Not enough of the
circumstances of the single domestic-violence incident was presented at the
hearing. While Boyfriend’s son told FCM Smith that Mother pulled a knife on
Boyfriend, he also said a gun was involved, and the record does not indicate
who possessed the gun or how it was involved. And while Boyfriend’s son’s
statement that Mother “drinks nightly” is concerning, there was no evidence
indicating how much she drinks per night or that she suffers from alcoholism.
As such, the trial court’s finding Mother had mental-health issues is not
supported by the evidence.
[11] The State also argues that even if there is insufficient evidence to find Mother
had mental-health issues, we should affirm the trial court’s CHINS
determination under the general-judgment standard based on the evidence of
domestic violence in the household. However, “we are bound by the findings of
the trial court on the issues that are covered[.]” Park, 862 N.E.2d at 1280. Here,
the trial court’s finding covered the endangerment element, and as such “we are
not at liberty to scour the record to find evidence to support the judgment.” Id.[12] Because the evidence does not support the trial court’s CHINS finding, we
reverse the judgment.
[13] Reversed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-1379 | January 7, 2021 Page 7 of 7