In the Matter of: S.M. (Minor Child), and D.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
54A01-1612-JC-2795
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 4, 2017Background
- Child S.M. born Feb. 16, 2016; parents Mother (S.D.) and Father (D.M.) lived together in Crawfordsville, Indiana.
- DCS received report (June 13, 2016) alleging parental substance abuse and that Father had been jailed after a failed methamphetamine screen.
- Multiple oral drug screens administered to Father between June and August 2016 produced several positives (morphine, hydrocodone, amphetamine); Father produced a hydrocodone prescription for some positives but not for others.
- Father denied illegal drug use, suggested his drink was spiked, refused or later minimized need for services, and stopped supervised visits with the child before the fact‑finding hearing.
- DCS filed a CHINS petition (June 28, 2016); trial court adjudicated S.M. a CHINS (Nov. 10, 2016), finding parental substance use and that coercive intervention was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of oral drug‑screen exhibits | Exhibits were properly authenticated by testimony about the collection process and chain‑of‑custody procedures. | Screens were improperly administered (ten‑minute observation not followed; possible handling contamination), so exhibits lacked foundation. | Court admitted all contested drug‑screen exhibits: procedures were substantially followed and samples not shown to be contaminated. |
| Sufficiency to adjudicate CHINS | Positive drug screens, Father’s refusal to engage in recommended services, and cessation of visits endangered the child and showed services unlikely absent court intervention. | Screens do not prove substance abuse sufficient for CHINS; facts more like precedents where parents cooperated and screens were negative/prescribed. | Court affirmed CHINS adjudication: record supports finding that child was endangered and coercive intervention was necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Involuntary Termination of Parent Child Relationship of A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review for admission of evidence/abuse of discretion).
- In re Paternity of B.B., 1 N.E.3d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (authentication standard under Evid. R. 901; reasonable probability suffices).
- In re K.B., 24 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (DCS burden in CHINS cases and appellate review deference to trial court).
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (parens patriae power and requirement that court intervention be reserved for parents who lack ability to provide for children without coercion).
- B.N. v. Marion Cnty. Dept. of Child Servs., 969 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (contrast case where parental cooperation, prescriptions, and negative screens undercut CHINS determination).