CHINS: AJ v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
62A01-1701-JC-142
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- In April 2016 Mother physically attacked Child’s half‑sister while Child (then 14) witnessed the incident; Mother was arrested and later admitted the CHINS allegations. DCS removed Child from the home and filed a CHINS petition.
- Child was placed with foster parents because Father did not have custody and was on parole at the time of removal.
- Father lived and worked in Kentucky/Indiana, had inconsistent visitation (cancelations due to incarceration and financial limits), paid child support from his wages, and had limited participation in services (only visitation).
- Child has a seizure disorder requiring medication and regular medical appointments; DCS had no evidence Father could manage Child’s medical needs.
- Three months after the domestic incident, Father was charged (and later convicted of misdemeanors) for terroristic threatening and wanton endangerment, resulting in probation.
- The juvenile court adjudicated Child a CHINS; Father appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for (1) endangerment/impairment of Child’s physical or mental condition and (2) necessity of court coercive intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Child’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or endangered | Exposure to domestic violence (witnessing Mother’s assault) endangered Child’s mental/physical condition and supports CHINS | No evidence Child lacked food, shelter, clothing, or other needs; Father can provide for Child | Court affirmed: witnessing domestic violence endangered Child; evidence supports CHINS finding |
| Whether coercive intervention of the court was necessary | Father lacked custody, was on parole, had inconsistent visitation, limited participation in services, and showed inability to manage Child’s medical needs—so court intervention likely necessary | Father is willing and able to provide care, has a home and employment, and has no allegations of abuse | Court affirmed: given Father’s circumstances (parole, inconsistent engagement, later criminal charge, inability shown to manage medical/ supervision needs), coercive intervention was necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (CHINS coercive‑intervention element protects against unwarranted state intrusion)
- K.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (child’s exposure to domestic violence can support a CHINS finding)
- Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (deference to trial courts in family law matters)
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (judgment may be affirmed on any legal theory supported by the evidence)