In re the Matter of Lu.G. and Li.G. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services and A.G. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
18A-JC-1760
Ind. Ct. App.Mar 15, 2019Background
- Twin children born prematurely on February 13, 2018; umbilical cord drug screens were positive for methamphetamine. Mother also had positive methamphetamine tests during and after pregnancy.
- DCS filed CHINS petitions on March 19, 2018; trial court removed children from Mother's care at initial hearing.
- At factfinding (May 7), DCS introduced lab reports of umbilical cord positive tests; Mother objected to foundation but court admitted the exhibits; Caudill (DCS case manager) and Mother both testified that umbilical cord tests were positive.
- Mother testified she stopped using drugs at 12 weeks of pregnancy, had been testing clean twice-weekly after two post-birth positives, had housing at time of hearing, employment, therapy, and visitation; she denied needing treatment and said she was not an addict.
- Trial court adjudicated the children CHINS under IND. CODE § 31-34-1-10 (child born with any amount of a controlled substance in body including umbilical cord tissue and needs care/treatment unlikely to be provided without court intervention). Mother appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and sufficiency as to both the presence of a controlled substance and the need for coercive intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lab reports (Exhibits 1 & 2) | Mother: exhibits lacked foundation and were mischaracterized (umbilical cord vs child testing); should be excluded | DCS: lab reports were accompanied by custodian affidavit and admissible; Caudill also testified to positive results | Admission, if erroneous, was harmless because testimony (Caudill and Mother) independently established positive umbilical cord tests; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency re § 31-34-1-10(1)(C) (born with controlled substance) | Mother: insufficient evidence because exhibits were unreliable/inadmissible to show controlled substance in umbilical cord tissue | DCS: lab reports and testimony established controlled substance presence in umbilical cord tissue | Held: Sufficient evidence; the presence of methamphetamine in umbilical cord tissue was uncontroverted |
| Sufficiency re § 31-34-1-10(2)(B) (need for care/treatment unlikely to be provided without coercive intervention) | Mother: by factfinding hearing she had stable housing, clean drug screens for weeks, employment, therapy — no need for court coercion | DCS: Mother had recent positive tests, had previously been homeless, and testified she did not believe she needed treatment, indicating she would not accept services without court order | Held: Sufficient evidence; court reasonably concluded Mother would not accept needed drug treatment without court intervention despite improvements; coercive intervention justified |
| Consideration of mother’s condition at time of hearing | Mother: trial court failed to consider her current stabilization (housing, clean tests, services) | DCS: trial court considered current status but weighed testimony that Mother denied needing DCS-ordered treatment | Held: Trial court did consider current condition; one written finding on housing was clearly erroneous but harmless; overall ruling supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (standards for appellate review of CHINS findings and coercive-intervention inquiry)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (appellate deference; do not reweigh evidence in CHINS review)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS purpose: protect children, not punish parents)
- In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (DCS burden to prove CHINS by preponderance)
- In re Paternity of H.R.M., 864 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing evidentiary admission and harmless error analysis)
- Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (coercive-intervention element guards against unwarranted state interference)
- Matter of N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (consider family's condition at time of hearing)
- Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016) (deference to trial court's credibility determinations in family law)
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (affirm judgment if sustainable on any legal theory supported by evidence)
- In re S.M., 45 N.E.3d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discussed in relation to CHINS under a different statutory subsection)
- Ad.M. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 103 N.E.3d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (discussed re: endangerment under different CHINS statute)