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.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)