In Re: A.L., a Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, L.L. (Father) and A.L. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
32A01-1706-JC-1325
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Child born Feb. 2008; mother is primary caregiver while father travels overnight for work. Mother has prior OWI conviction, daily wine consumption, and an alleged bipolar diagnosis with no record of treatment.
- Aug. 25, 2016: Mother taken to ER, displayed agitated/combative behavior; later pulled over while driving with Child and a toddler; officers observed signs of intoxication, children crying and fearful; Mother refused to cooperate and was arrested; BAC later .152.
- DCS received report, made multiple unsuccessful contact attempts, then met parents in September; father appeared unconcerned about Mother’s drinking and Child’s safety.
- DCS created a short-term safety plan requiring an adult daughter to check on Child when Father was traveling; Mother was repeatedly hostile, uncooperative with DCS and CASA, made inappropriate statements in Child’s presence, and demanded money for wine.
- DCS filed a CHINS petition (Oct. 2016). Trial court adjudicated Child a CHINS (Apr. 28, 2017), finding Mother’s intoxicated driving with Child, chronic drinking, lack of treatment, uncooperativeness, and Father’s indifference established serious endangerment, unmet needs, and need for court coercion.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DCS' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s factual findings lacked support | Parents argued many findings were unsupported or overstated | DCS relied on officer, FCM, CASA testimony and safety-plan evidence | Court held findings were supported by testimony and reasonable inferences; declined to reweigh credibility |
| Whether Mother’s OWI and related conduct constituted "serious endangerment" | Parents conceded OWI but argued aggregate conduct insufficient | DCS argued intoxicated driving with Child and pattern of dangerous/unstable behavior amounted to serious endangerment | Court held evidence (OWI with minor, combative/intoxicated behavior) established serious endangerment |
| Whether Child’s needs for supervision/care were unmet | Parents argued safety plan and some cooperation showed needs met | DCS argued Child lacked a sober, stable caregiver when Father traveled and Child reported mother acted differently when drinking | Court held, in aggregate, evidence established Child’s supervision needs were unmet |
| Whether court coercion was necessary | Parents pointed to safety plan and mother’s assessment participation as evidence coercion unnecessary | DCS emphasized mother’s ongoing refusal to engage, lack of treatment, father's indifference, and plan’s temporary nature | Court held coercive intervention was necessary to secure services and protect Child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.R., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS standard: State must prove by preponderance; elements required)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (discussion of CHINS burden and elements)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (CHINS requires serious endangerment, unmet needs, and likely need for coercion)
- Egly v. Blackford County Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (appellate review in CHINS: do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility)