In the Matter of J.S. (Minor Child) and A.S. (Mother) A.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
32A01-1611-JC-2652
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Child (born 2009) was taken to the ER after Mother reported Child had been poisoned; medical staff found no opiates but diagnosed UTI and pneumonia. DCS received multiple reports raising concerns about Mother’s delusional beliefs and resulting conduct toward Child.
- Mother had a history of mental-health diagnoses (including delusional disorder, schizotypal/paranoid traits) and seizures; a February 2016 psychological evaluation was considered by the court.
- Shelter caseworker Ramona Guthrie testified Mother frequently accused others of poisoning and that Child displayed fear of being poisoned; Child sometimes mimicked seizure symptoms, apparently to gain Mother’s attention.
- DCS removed Child on an emergency basis in December 2015 and filed a CHINS petition; Child was placed with Father.
- The trial court entered findings that Mother’s delusions had seriously endangered Child’s mental health, Mother’s supervision was inappropriate, and coercive court intervention was necessary to ensure Child received services.
- The court adjudicated Child a CHINS and ordered Mother to undergo psychological/neuropsychological testing and follow treatment recommendations; Mother appealed only the sufficiency of evidence as to the need for coercive intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports that without court coercion Child would not receive needed care/treatment (element 3 of CHINS) | Mother argued coercive intervention was unnecessary because she was participating in mental-health treatment and shelter services | DCS argued Mother’s delusions continued to impair Child’s mental health, Child had learned to fake symptoms, and supervision remained unsafe absent court intervention | Affirmed: the unchallenged findings support conclusion that coercive intervention was necessary and Child is a CHINS |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (standard for appellate review of CHINS factfinding and findings)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (elements and burden of proof for CHINS)
- Smith v. Miller Builders, Inc., 741 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (when findings are unchallenged, review focuses on whether findings support judgment)
- In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirms that participation in services does not necessarily preclude CHINS adjudication)