In the Matter of Des.B. and Dem.B., Minor Children in Need of Services, E.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 40
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DCS investigated Mother after reports she used and sold drugs from her Marion County home where two children (both under three) lived; Mother admitted cocaine use and later tested positive for alcohol and marijuana.
- Mother twice declined to disclose the children’s location during the investigation and eventually brought them to the Child Advocacy Center.
- Mother underwent a substance use assessment diagnosing cannabis dependence and cocaine abuse, documenting daily marijuana use and cocaine use once or twice weekly, and recommending intensive outpatient treatment, parenting assessment, and regular drug screening.
- Mother had criminal history including a recent marijuana possession plea during DCS involvement and prior convictions including an OWI and domestic battery; she worked as an exotic dancer and admitted using substances at work.
- Trial court admitted the assessor’s written report over hearsay/cumulative objection and allowed remote toxicology testimony; it found a substantial risk to the children from Mother’s untreated substance abuse and unsafe relationships with the children’s fathers and adjudicated the children CHINS.
- On appeal Mother challenged admission of evidence and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the CHINS adjudication; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of assessor’s written report | Admission violated counselor-client confidentiality and was hearsay/cumulative | Report was admissible; appellant failed to preserve confidentiality objection | Waived: appellant objected only on hearsay/cumulative grounds, so confidentiality claim not preserved |
| Telephone testimony of toxicologist | Remote testimony violated Admin. R. 14 and prejudiced Mother because it proved positive drug screen | Any error harmless because Mother admitted failing a drug screen and assessor reported same results | Harmless error: testimony was cumulative and did not affect substantial rights |
| Sufficiency of evidence for CHINS adjudication | Single admitted/remote drug use and no evidence of use in children’s presence insufficient (rely on Perrine) | Mother’s extensive history, recent positive screen and plea, assessor’s opinion, deceit to caseworkers, and dangerous relationships with fathers created substantial risk | Affirmed: court properly found children were endangered and coercive intervention necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Sibbing v. Cave, 922 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. 2010) (harmless-error and cumulative-evidence principles for admission errors)
- Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 2011) (preservation of evidentiary objections required to raise new grounds on appeal)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS adjudication focuses on child’s condition, not parental punishment)
- Perrine v. Marion County Office of Child Services, 866 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (single, isolated drug use outside child’s presence insufficient for CHINS)
- In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (extensive drug use and exposure of an infant to drug-use environment supported CHINS)