In the Matter of R.Y. and B.H. (Minor Children) Children in Need of Services, S.H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 10A01-1608-JC-1851

Background

Mother lived with boyfriend C.G. and several children; an infant (K.H.) died of SIDS on March 17, 2016, prompting a DCS investigation.
Mother tested positive for amphetamines/methamphetamines during the investigation.
Police executed a March 26 search warrant at C.G.’s residence after controlled buys and found methamphetamine and paraphernalia in the parents’ bedroom.
The two older children (14 and 8) were found home alone; Mother refused to reclaim them that night and C.G. fled. Children were in police custody until relatives collected them.
DCS filed CHINS petitions; trial court found Mother not credible, adjudicated the children CHINS, and entered dispositional orders. Mother appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and relied on Perrine.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported CHINS adjudication	Mother argued the facts were like Perrine: isolated drug use outside child’s presence insufficient for CHINS	DCS argued mother’s positive drug test, drugs/paraphernalia in home, children left unsupervised, and mother’s refusal to take custody supported CHINS	Affirmed: evidence supported that children were endangered and needed court intervention
Credibility of Mother’s testimony about leaving a babysitter and reasons for not taking custody	Mother claimed she left a babysitter (father of older child) and left to find C.G., explaining absence	DCS pointed to police testimony, no babysitter acknowledgment, no-trespass order against alleged babysitter, and mother’s refusal to retrieve children	Trial court’s adverse credibility finding stands; appellate court will not reweigh credibility
Whether a single admitted drug use (or positive test) alone suffices for CHINS	Mother relied on Perrine to argue single/isolated use insufficient	DCS argued surrounding facts show more than isolated use — ongoing drug activity in the home and lack of supervision	Perrine distinguished; here facts exceed single isolated use and support CHINS
Whether findings of fact were clearly erroneous	Mother contended the court’s factual findings were unsupported	DCS maintained the record contains facts and reasonable inferences supporting findings	Findings were not clearly erroneous under Trial Rule 52(A); judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Perrine v. Marion Cnty. Office of Child Services, 866 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (single admitted meth use outside child’s presence, without more, insufficient for CHINS)
In re M.W., 869 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for DCS burden and reviewing sufficiency of evidence in CHINS appeals)
Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind. 2000) (appellate review of findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (findings are clearly erroneous only when record contains no facts to support them)