In the Matter of: Ad.M., An.M., and S.M. (Minor Children) A.M. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 103 N.E.3d 709

Mother (A.M.) has three children: Ad.M. (b. 2005), An.M. (b. 2014), and S.M. (b. 2015). S.M. tested positive for marijuana at birth; DCS previously completed an informal adjustment with Mother in 2016.
On June 22, 2017, Mother and Father had a physical altercation at a friend B.V.’s house while the children were present; Ad.M. witnessed the fight and called police. Officers found and arrested B.V. for marijuana plants at the residence.
DCS investigated, observed poor housing and cleanliness at the residence and trailer, learned Mother knew marijuana was present, and Mother initially refused a drug test; later hair-follicle tests (after petitions filed) were positive for marijuana (and prescribed amphetamine).
DCS filed CHINS petitions citing domestic violence, presence of drugs in the home, Mother’s refusal to test, and unstable housing. The children remained in Mother’s care during proceedings; Mother later moved away from Father and filed for a protective order.
Trial court adjudicated the children CHINS after a fact-finding hearing; Mother appealed arguing insufficient evidence that the children were seriously endangered by her actions or inactions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether evidence proved children were CHINS under Ind. Code §31-34-1-1 (serious endangerment, unmet needs, unlikely to be met without court coercion)	Marijuana found in/around home, Mother tested positive twice, children reported seeing marijuana, and a domestic-violence incident was witnessed by a child — these facts seriously endangered the children and justify CHINS adjudication	Evidence was insufficient: no proof marijuana use impaired parenting or occurred in children’s presence; domestic violence was a single incident and Mother moved away and sought a protective order; family conditions had improved by hearing	Reversed: DCS failed to prove the children were seriously endangered or that their needs were unmet such that CHINS adjudication was warranted

In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS standard: State must prove by a preponderance that child is CHINS; focus on child's condition)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (three-element CHINS framework and instruction to consider family condition at time of hearing)
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for CHINS appeals; civil action burden of proof)
In re S.M., 45 N.E.3d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (sporadic parental marijuana use and presence of marijuana alone insufficient to show children endangered)
In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (courts should consider family’s current condition to avoid punishing corrected past mistakes)
In re B.N., 969 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (single witnessed domestic-violence incident did not support CHINS where parent had separated from abuser and sought protective order)
E.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (in termination context, courts may weigh prior history more heavily; contrasted with CHINS inquiries focusing on current condition)