In the Matter of J.J., Child in Need of Services E.B. (Mother) v. Marion County Department of Child Services, Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.), 49A02-1512-JC-2216

Child (J.J.) born April 2015; parents had an existing open CHINS case for older children and were under service orders.
DCS received a neglect report in August 2015 alleging parental drug use, possible prostitution at the home, and chaotic/unsafe conditions; initial drug screens by a DCS worker were reported positive for synthetic cannabinoids.
DCS filed a CHINS petition in September 2015; the trial court initially allowed in-home placement contingent on random drug screens but later ordered removal after further concerns and a missed/refused screen by Father.
At the November 2015 fact-finding hearing the court admitted testimony and records (including documents from the siblings’ CHINS case) and entered findings that parents had substance abuse and domestic violence histories, Mother had significant physical/mental health problems and suicidal statements, and parents made threats toward a CASA.
The trial court adjudicated the infant a CHINS and continued placement outside the home; dispositional orders required substance abuse, mental health, home-based services, and random drug screens.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the appellate standard of review in CHINS cases is too deferential and (2) several trial court findings and the CHINS adjudication were not supported by the evidence; she also raised an ADA-related argument for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Standard of review in CHINS appeals	Current appellate review is too deferential and makes reversal nearly impossible; seek heightened scrutiny	Appellate court must apply Indiana Supreme Court's established deferential standards	Court declined to change the standard; applied existing deferential standard and affirmed
Sufficiency of findings re: parental substance abuse and drug tests	Drug test results were not admitted into evidence; findings about drug use and "substance abuse issues" are unsupported	Witness testimony and records from siblings' CHINS case supported findings of substance abuse and initial positive screens	Court found testimony and admitted records sufficient to support findings of substance abuse and initial positive spice screens
Findings about threats to service providers	Mother contested findings that parents threatened case manager and CASA	DCS relied on home-based case manager's testimony that parents threatened the CASA; less support for threat to case manager	Court found evidence supported threat to CASA but not to family case manager; that partial discrepancy did not require reversal
ADA compliance for accommodations	Services were not tailored to accommodate Mother's disabilities (raised on appeal)	Issue was not raised below; therefore waived	Court held ADA claim waived because Mother did not raise it in trial court

In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (standard that State must prove CHINS by a preponderance of evidence)
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review principle: do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (two-tiered review when trial court issues findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (CHINS statute permits intervention before a tragedy; protects children endangered by parental action/inaction)
Horn v. Hendrickson, 824 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate courts cannot revise standards set by the Indiana Supreme Court)
In re S.M., 45 N.E.3d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (example of appellate reversal of a CHINS adjudication when evidence was insufficient)