In the Matter of: La.H., Le.H., Lo.H., Ma.H., S.W., W.H., and Me.H. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services and M.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
90A02-1609-JC-2135
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- Father and Mother care for seven minor children; one older stepchild (R.W.) alleged long‑term sexual abuse by Father. DCS received the report March 28, 2016. R.W. turned 18 as the DCS investigation began and was not adjudicated CHINS.
- DCS investigated; parents initially refused cooperation and DCS removed the six younger children from the home, placing them with maternal relatives after observing poor hygiene and unsanitary, structurally compromised living conditions.
- Verified CHINS petitions were filed for the minor children; parents denied allegations. A fact‑finding hearing was held June 10, 2016, where R.W. testified in detail about multiple incidents of sexual abuse by Father from childhood into adolescence.
- The juvenile court expressly found R.W.’s testimony credible and true, adjudicated all seven (including S.W.) children as CHINS under I.C. § 31‑34‑1‑1 (and S.W. also under § 31‑34‑1‑2), and ordered continued relative placement and services for the parents (including sex‑offender treatment for Father).
- Father appealed, challenging the CHINS adjudication as clearly erroneous, arguing the court relied on speculation regarding sexual abuse and that coercive intervention was not justified because parents had begun cooperating with services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s CHINS adjudication is clearly erroneous | DCS: Court properly found children were endangered by Father’s conduct and home conditions; coercive intervention required | Father: Adjudication rests on speculation about sexual abuse and was clearly erroneous; coercive intervention not justified given partial cooperation | Affirmed. Court found R.W.’s testimony credible and evidence supported CHINS findings and need for coercive intervention |
| Validity of relying on R.W.’s sexual‑abuse testimony | DCS: R.W.’s detailed testimony was credible and justified finding sexual abuse occurred | Father: Case law (In re D.H.) forbids CHINS adjudication based on speculation absent definitive findings | Court distinguished In re D.H. and concluded R.W.’s testimony was expressly found true, so adjudication was not speculative |
| Whether coercive intervention requirement met | DCS: Parents had not acknowledged abuse or sufficiently remedied dangerous home conditions; services had only just begun | Father: Parents’ partial engagement in services made court coercion unnecessary | Court held coercive intervention was warranted given parents’ lack of acknowledgment, recent start of services, and unsafe conditions |
| Adjudication of S.W. under § 31‑34‑1‑2 | DCS: S.W.’s physical/mental health endangered by parental acts/omissions; CHINS status appropriate | Father: Challenges to S.W. largely tied to other arguments already raised | Court affirmed CHINS under § 31‑34‑1‑1 and therefore did not separately reconsider S.W.’s § 31‑34‑1‑2 adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review and burden in CHINS proceedings)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (two‑tiered review where trial court issues findings and conclusions)
- In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (coercive intervention element considers family condition at time of hearing)
- In re D.H., 859 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (cannot declare children CHINS based on speculation that alleged abuse, if true, would endanger them)
- In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (courts need not wait for tragedy before intervening)
- In re Adoption of A.S., 912 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of clearly erroneous as applied to findings)
- In re S.L., 997 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate review standard: no reweighing of evidence or credibility determinations)