K.B. and M.B. (Minor Children), and M.W. B. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 24 N.E.3d 997

Father (M.W.B.) and his ex-wife shared custody of two children, M.B. (b. 2001) and K.B. (b. 2005); Father lived with his girlfriend (the girlfriend) and her child, M.A.
On Sept. 1, 2012, police responded to a domestic incident at Father’s residence; children were present and M.A. reported the siblings cried during fights.
DCS investigated, observed Father and girlfriend appearing impaired, and attempted home visits; parents initially refused drug screens and limited DCS access to the children.
Parents entered an Informal Adjustment (agreeing to supervision, counseling, and random drug screens) but largely failed to comply with services and DCS visits.
DCS filed CHINS petitions; after fact-finding the trial court adjudicated the children CHINS based on exposure to domestic violence, suspected parental substance abuse, and parents’ refusal to complete services, and later placed the children under DCS wardship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
1. Whether evidence sufficed to adjudicate the children CHINS (endangerment from domestic violence and substance abuse)	Exposure to repeated domestic violence and credible indicia of parental drug use endangered the children’s physical/mental condition	One episode of violence and lack of positive drug tests do not prove ongoing endangerment or emotional trauma	Affirmed: court may adjudicate CHINS based on exposure that endangers children; evidence (witness testimony, behaviors, child statements, noncompliance) supported findings of domestic violence and substance abuse concerns
2. Whether court coercive intervention was necessary (statutory requirement that needed care unlikely without court intervention)	Parents repeatedly failed to follow Informal Adjustment, missed counseling and DCS visits, refused drug screens, and were evasive about residence, showing needs unlikely to be met without court coercion	Parents had not forfeited right to decline informal services; coercion unnecessary because children were clothed, fed, and doing reasonably well in school	Affirmed: parents’ persistent noncompliance and evasiveness showed the children’s unmet needs were unlikely to be remedied without court intervention

In re M.W., 869 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App.) (burden of proof in CHINS is preponderance)
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review limits—do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility)
In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App.) (courts may consider parents’ situation at time of hearing; CHINS need not wait for actual harm)
Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind.) (standard for reviewing findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind.) (findings are clearly erroneous only when record contains no supporting facts)
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. Ct. App.) (child exposure to domestic violence can support CHINS)
In re R.P., 949 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App.) (CHINS adjudication may be based on endangered condition even without manifest injury)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (focus of CHINS is child’s need and whether state coercion is required)
In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App.) (court need not wait for tragedy before intervening in child welfare cases)