In the Matter of E.K. (Minor Child), A Child in Need of Services, and, J.M. (Mother), and T.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
83 N.E.3d 1256
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Three-year-old E.K. attended daycare; daycare reported bruising on his buttocks observed Oct. 14, 2016. DCS investigated and photographed the bruises.
- Father admitted spanking E.K. the night before (three single swats, one on bare skin) to stop a prolonged bedtime tantrum; Mother knew but did not witness the final swat.
- Parents signed a safety plan prohibiting physical discipline, cooperated with DCS, engaged in home-based family counseling, and did not have E.K. removed from their care.
- Father completed a psychological exam, was diagnosed with several disorders, and complied with medication and voluntary supports; no evidence father refused treatment.
- No evidence showed prior abuse, inadequate housing, unmet basic needs, or that E.K. suffered lasting physical or psychological harm; DCS alleged (but did not prove) other concerns like domestic violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports CHINS finding under I.C. §31-34-1-1 (endangerment + need for court coercion) | Single incident of corporal punishment causing bruising endangers child and warrants CHINS; court may infer continued risk | Spanking was parental discipline (statutorily permitted if reasonable); parents cooperated, corrected conduct, and accepted services, so coercive intervention not needed | Reversed: insufficient evidence that coercive court intervention was necessary; CHINS finding vacated |
| Whether Father’s mental health justifies CHINS | Father’s diagnoses pose risk to child and support need for court intervention | Father complied with recommendations, takes medication, and voluntarily seeks support; no proof he would refuse needed treatment | Father’s mental-health treatment did not support CHINS absent evidence of unwillingness to accept help |
| Whether prior or continuing danger exists beyond the single incident | DCS pointed to December incident where child injured himself during tantrum as ongoing danger | Parents were engaging in services and safety plan; a single self-injury episode does not show parents must be coerced into treatment | Court held isolated incidents plus parental cooperation do not establish necessity of coercive intervention |
| Whether court may infer coercion is needed once a CHINS condition is found (reliance on M.R.) | DCS urged court could infer coercion from CHINS condition | Parents argued coercion is a distinct element DCS must prove | Court rejected automatic inference; coercive intervention is a separate element DCS must prove |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing CHINS findings and need for coercive intervention)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review principles in CHINS cases)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS purpose: protect children, not punish parents)
- Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016) (deference to trial courts in family matters)
- In re D.J. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (consider family’s condition at time of hearing when assessing coercion)
- In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (praising parental improvement and cautioning against coercive findings for corrected conduct)
- In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (mental-health diagnosis alone insufficient for CHINS when parent seeks treatment)
- In re V.H., 967 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (reversing CHINS where parent was obtaining treatment for child’s problems)
- In re M.R., 452 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (court noted as outdated authority regarding inference of coercion)
- Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (clarifying DCS must prove coercive-intervention element separately)
- Matter of N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (same)