In re the Matter of A.M. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and J.M. (Mother) and D.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 121 N.E.3d 556

Child (born 2012) lived with Mother (J.M.) and Father (D.M.) and slept in their bed; Child had a prior CHINS history and had spent early years with relative B.S.
In August 2017 DCS received a report that Child accused Father of repeatedly fondling her breasts, vagina, and buttocks while in bed with both parents present.
Child underwent a same-day forensic interview at a child advocacy center; DCS and police observed a live feed of the interview and later removed Child to relative placement when Mother said she did not believe the allegations.
DCS filed a CHINS petition alleging Father’s sexual molestation, Mother’s presence during the incidents, and Mother’s neglect/disbelief; a protective order barred Father from contact with Child.
At a child-hearsay hearing the trial court found the forensic interview statements sufficiently reliable and that Child was unavailable to testify; at factfinding the court adjudicated Child a CHINS and continued placement with B.S.
Parents appealed, arguing (1) the forensic interview was hearsay and unreliable and (2) evidence was insufficient to support CHINS; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Child’s forensic interview under child-hearsay statute	DCS: interview admissible; statements reliable and child unavailable	Parents: statements unreliable (lack of specificity, child cannot distinguish truth/lie)	Admissible — trial court did not abuse discretion; statements sufficiently reliable for a four-year-old and child was unavailable under statute
Sufficiency of evidence for CHINS adjudication	DCS: child’s disclosures, removal, family history, and parenting incapacity support CHINS	Parents: challenge sufficiency generally (do not attack specific findings)	Sufficient — unchallenged findings support that Child is endangered and needs court intervention

In re S.L.H.S., 885 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re A.J., 877 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal only if substantial rights affected)
In re J.Q., 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing child-hearsay in CHINS from protected-persons rule in criminal cases)
In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (deference to trial court’s credibility determinations)
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in CHINS)
In re R.P., 949 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (two-tiered review when trial court issues findings and conclusions)
Matter of E.K., 83 N.E.3d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (family law deference to trial courts)
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS focuses on child’s condition, not parental fault)
T.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (unchallenged findings stand as proven)