In re the Matter of J.D., Minor Child, and J.H., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 49A02-1705-JC-980

Background

Mother had an open CHINS case concerning four older children arising from domestic violence between Mother and Father; Mother gave birth to J.D. in April 2016.
DCS filed a verified petition in May 2016 alleging J.D. was a CHINS due to ongoing domestic violence, Mother’s minimization of risk, Father’s presence in the home, drug use in the home, and Mother’s criminal activity while J.D. was present.
Testimony at fact-finding included family case managers, a domestic violence counselor, a visitation facilitator, Father’s mother, and Mother; evidence included incomplete domestic-violence treatment, incidents of violence (including Father punching a TV), marijuana smell in the home, and Mother allowing Father contact despite protective orders/safety plans.
The trial court entered detailed findings that Mother continued to minimize domestic violence, allowed Father unsupervised access and presence in the home while he had not completed services, violated DCS safety plans, and engaged in conduct endangering J.D.
The court adjudicated J.D. a CHINS on March 22, 2017 and entered a dispositional order placing J.D. with relatives and authorizing conditioned unsupervised parenting time for Mother.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to adjudicate J.D. a CHINS	Mother contends she had completed services or was close to completion, Father had court-authorized contact, and DCS did not need coercive intervention; she argues court erred in finding minimization and danger	DCS points to unchallenged findings: ongoing domestic violence, Mother’s minimization, Father living in home before completing treatment, drug use in home, and safety-plan violations	Court affirmed: evidence and findings support CHINS adjudication (court may intervene before a tragedy)
Whether dispositional order violated least-restrictive/least-disruptive mandate	Mother argues disposition was not least restrictive and overly disruptive of family life	DCS notes disposition allowed relative placement and conditioned unsupervised parenting time with safety-plan compliance and unannounced DCS visits	Court held disposition consistent with statutory mandate; no reversible error
Whether coercive intervention was required to obtain needed services	Mother argues coercion was unnecessary because she purportedly completed services and would cooperate	DCS argues Mother minimized risks and refused/failed to complete required services, making court intervention necessary to protect the child	Court concluded J.D. needed care/treatment unlikely to be provided without court intervention and affirmed need for CHINS finding
Whether Mother may raise due-process/notice claim on Father’s behalf (challenging procedure regarding Father)	Mother contends Father wasn’t notified timely and raising this process defect should invalidate proceedings	DCS and court note Mother did not object at trial and lacks standing to assert Father’s rights; any objection was waived	Court rejected the procedural argument as waived and found Mother lacked standing to raise Father’s notice issue

Key Cases Cited

In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for CHINS findings and that appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (court need not wait for a tragedy; CHINS adjudication appropriate when child is endangered by parental action/inaction)
Roark v. Roark, 551 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (evidence at fact-finding may support CHINS finding before serious harm occurs)
Parker v. Monroe Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 533 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (affirming that protective intervention may be appropriate absent actual tragedy)