In the Matter of E.J.-H. & A.J.-H. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and G.J. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A03-1607-JC-1633

Mother and boyfriend (Father) are parents of two young children; parents had a history of volatile, physical confrontations and Father had prior criminal convictions.
On Nov. 15, 2015 Father violently assaulted Mother at a gas station while one child was in Mother’s vehicle and was splattered with Mother’s blood; Mother sustained significant injuries.
DCS opened an investigation, developed a safety plan with Mother (including obtaining protective orders and domestic-violence counseling), and later filed a CHINS petition alleging the children were endangered.
Mother initially wavered on following the safety plan but ultimately participated in domestic-violence counseling and obtained protective orders for herself (Mar. 23, 2016) and the children (Apr. 6, 2016) before the factfinding hearing. Father’s whereabouts remained unknown and he did not participate in the CHINS proceedings.
Trial court adjudicated the children CHINS; Mother appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed whether DCS proved the children were seriously endangered due to Mother’s inability/refusal to provide necessary supervision or protection and whether court coercion was required.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to adjudicate the children CHINS under Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1	Mother argued evidence was insufficient because she obtained protective orders and engaged in counseling before factfinding, the children were cared for by great-grandparents, and there was no ongoing threat from Father	DCS argued Mother minimized risk, delayed obtaining protective orders and services, and thus failed to protect children absent court intervention	Reversed: evidence insufficient — Mother took legal steps (protective orders, counseling) and no ongoing threat was shown, so coercive court intervention was unnecessary

In re Des. B., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard giving deference to trial court credibility determinations in sufficiency review)
K.D. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (review scope in sufficiency-of-evidence appeals)
In re R.P., 949 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (two-tiered review for findings and judgment when trial court issues findings)
K.B. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (clarifies when findings are clearly erroneous)
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS statutory elements focus on child’s condition and need for court intervention)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (evidence insufficient for CHINS where parent later complied with protective steps and initial lack of diligence did not justify coercive intervention)