In the Matter of: C.K., a Child Alleged to be in Need of Services, F.R. (Mother) and B.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 479
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.2016Background
- C.K., born April 2015, was taken to daycare on August 19, 2015 and shortly thereafter found lethargic/unresponsive; paramedics and hospital testing revealed bilateral subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages.
- Imaging showed blood of different ages (acute and chronic densities), suggesting more than one bleeding event; specialists classified the injury as at least moderate and raised concern for non-accidental trauma.
- Drs. Hicks and Fulkerson testified that the force required to cause C.K.’s injuries is significant (impact or violent shaking) and that retinal hemorrhages in infants are particularly concerning for trauma.
- Mother had been alone with C.K. the morning of August 19; daycare staff observed him as unusually sleepy/low-tone when she left him; Mother failed a polygraph about involvement in the injury.
- DCS filed a CHINS petition and the juvenile court applied the rebuttable-presumption statute (I.C. § 31-34-12-4), found the presumption unrebutted, adjudicated C.K. a child in need of services, and ordered services; parents appealed arguing insufficient evidence and erroneous application of the presumption.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed only evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings and affirmed the CHINS adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parents) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supports CHINS finding | Evidence does not prove injuries resulted from parents’ act/omission; facts are consistent with accident or benign condition; mother’s evaluations rebut presumption | Medical evidence, symptoms at drop-off, imaging, and investigative facts sufficiently establish injury consistent with non-accidental trauma and justify CHINS | Affirmed: record supports findings and CHINS adjudication |
| Whether rebuttable-presumption statute (I.C. § 31-34-12-4) was misapplied | Court improperly raised/applied presumption; parents rebutted with medical and psychological evidence | State introduced competent evidence to raise presumption; parents failed to rebut it | Affirmed: presumption properly applied and not rebutted |
| Whether juvenile court improperly credited certain testimony (e.g., daycare staff, doctors) | Parents contend court misweighed credibility and should have favored GAL/Dr. Kohli | Juvenile court is the factfinder and may credit medical and daycare testimony over contrary evidence | Affirmed: appellate court will not reweigh credibility; court’s credibility determinations upheld |
| Whether child remains unsafe / need for coercive services | Parents argue GAL had no safety concerns and services were unnecessary | DCS points to risk of further injury, medical uncertainty about long-term effects, and parents’ refusal of services | Affirmed: court reasonably found services necessary to protect child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (appellate review standard for CHINS determinations; do not reweigh evidence)
- In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (burden and definitions for CHINS adjudication)
- In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (CHINS purpose is protection, not punishment)
- In re C.B., 865 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (application of rebuttable presumption statute in similar medical-injury context)