IN THE MATTER OF V.C. and J.C., Minor Children, N.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 14 2017, 8:34 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lisa M. Johnson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Brownsburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF V.C. and December 14, 2017
J.C., Minor Children Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1708-JC-1877
Appeal from the Marion Superior
N.C. (Mother), Court
Appellant-Defendant, The Honorable Marilyn Moores,
Judge
v.
The Honorable Rosanne Ang,
Magistrate
Indiana Department of Child
Trial Court Cause No.
Services,
49D09-1703-JC-681
Appellee-Plaintiff 49D09-1703-JC-682
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 1 of 10
May, Judge.
[1] N.C. (“Mother”) appeals the adjudication of her children, V.C. and Jo.C.,
(collectively, “Children”), as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). She
argues the trial court’s order is clearly erroneous because the Department of
Child Services (“DCS”) did not prove Children were CHINS as required by
statute. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] N.C. and J.C. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”), are the parents of V.C. and
Jo.C., born October 17, 2003, and September 30, 2007, respectively. On
February 19, 2017, Father overdosed on heroin and passed out on Jo.C.’s bed.
Mother was at work at the time. Jo.C. found his Father unresponsive and
enlisted the help of his great-grandmother, who was also home. Father was
taken to the hospital and recovered.
[3] DCS investigated the incident, and spoke with Father, who admitted he had
taken heroin and pain pills in the past, and had overdosed once before. Despite
the couple being married for fifteen years, Mother indicated she was unaware of
Father’s drug use. On February 28, 2017, DCS submitted its initial intake
report, which stated Father “volunteered to leave the home and not return until
his drug use has been addressed[.]” (App. Vol. II at 38.) Further, the report
indicated Mother “agreed to not allow [Father] to reside in the home until he is
a sober caregiver.” (Id.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 2 of 10
[4] On March 2, 2017, DCS filed a petition alleging Children were CHINS because
Father overdosed on heroin in Jo.C.’s presence, Father admitted to using
heroin, Father tested positive for opiates on February 28, 2017, and “[Mother]
has failed to identify [Father’s] drug use and cannot ensure the safety and well-
being of [Children] while in [Father’s] care.” (Id. at 30.) On the same day, the
trial court entered an order allowing Children to reside with Mother
“contingent upon [Father] not residing in the home and [Mother] and
[Children’s] participation in homebased therapy.” (Id. at 45.) The trial court
ordered supervised parenting time for Father and authorized DCS to put
services into place for Father.
[5] On June 19, 2017, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS
petition. Father testified he did not live with Mother and Children because he
was “not allowed” to do so. (Tr. at 11.) Father indicated he understood he
could return after he has “[f]ive clean drug screens and meet[s] with a
therapist,” (id.), but he had not met those requirements by the time of the fact-
finding hearing.
[6] Mother testified she did not know Father used drugs and had not spoken to him
about the overdose that prompted the DCS investigation. Mother also testified
she would have to know that Father “is not going to be under the influence of
anything at all[,]” (id. at 21), before she would allow him to live with her and
Children because she did not tolerate drug use. Mother testified she did not
believe Father posed a threat to Children because “he wouldn’t let anything
hurt his children or any kind of harm come around his children.” (Id. at 26.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 3 of 10
Mother participated in therapy as required by the trial court but stated, “I don’t
think that I need it.” (Id. at 27.)
[7] At the time of the fact-finding hearing, Debra Lampkins was Mother’s
homebased therapist. Lampkins testified Mother denied Father had overdosed
or that substance abuse occurred in the home. Lampkins indicated that if
Mother “were to have acknowledged that those things did occur . . . [i]t would
make it a little bit more easier [sic] to address some issues.” (Id. at 48.)
[8] The trial court adjudicated Children as CHINS on July 17, 2017. On August 8,
2017, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. The trial court entered
parental participation orders for both parents the same day. Mother’s order
required her to engage “in a home-based therapy program referred by the
Family Case Manager and follow all recommendations.” (App. Vol. II at 98.)
She was also ordered to “engage in [Children’s] therapy as recommended and
follow all recommendations.” (Id.) The trial court ordered Father to engage in
home-based therapy and follow all recommendations; complete a substance
abuse assessment and successfully complete all recommended treatment; submit
to random drug screens; and engage in Children’s therapy and follow all
recommendations.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 4 of 10
[9] A CHINS proceeding is civil in nature, so DCS must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. In re
N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 states:
A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes
eighteen (18) years of age:
(1) the child’s physical or mental condition is seriously impaired
or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or
neglect of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the
child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care,
education, or supervision; and
(2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that:
(A) the child is not receiving; and
(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court.
A CHINS adjudication “focuses on the condition of the child,” and not the
culpability of the parent. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105. The purpose of finding
a child to be a CHINS is to provide proper services for the benefit of the child,
not to punish the parent. Id. at 106.
[10] When a juvenile court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law in a
CHINS decision, we apply a two-tiered review. Parmeter v. Cass Cty. DCS, 878
N.E.2d 444, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), reh’g denied. We first consider whether
the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings support the
judgment. Id. We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are
clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 5 of 10
no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is
clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. We give due
regard to the juvenile court’s ability to assess witness credibility and we do not
reweigh the evidence; we instead consider the evidence most favorable to the
judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment. Id.
We defer substantially to findings of fact, but not to conclusions of law. Id.
Challenged Finding
[11] Mother challenges the trial court’s finding that “[Mother] has failed to take any
action to protect the children from being exposed to [Father’s] drug use.” (App.
Vol. II at 86.) Mother argues that finding is clearly erroneous and not
supported by the evidence because Father does not live with Children, Father
volunteered to move out of the home until he completed drug treatment, and
Mother will not allow Father to live with Children until he completes drug
treatment. The State points to evidence that Mother allowed Father to live with
Children until DCS completed its investigation, over a week after Father
overdosed; that Mother did not acknowledge that Father had a drug problem or
that he overdosed; and that Mother testified she did not believe Father posed a
threat to Children. Mother’s argument is a request that we reweigh the
evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See
Parmeter, 878 N.E.2d at 450 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge
the credibility of witnesses). Mother does not challenge any other of the trial
court’s findings, and thus they stand as proven. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 6 of 10
686, 687 (Ind. 1992) (“Because Madlem does not challenge the findings of the
trial court, they must be accepted as correct.”).
Mother’s Challenges to the Trial Court’s Conclusions
[12] The trial court found:
[Mother] engaged in homebased therapy with Debra Lampkins.
In working with Ms. Lampkins, [Mother] has denied any drug
use in the home and has denied that [Father] overdosed in
February. Ms. Lampkins is unable to fully provide therapeutic
services to [Mother] without recognition of the concerns which
exist in the family home.
(App. Vol. II at 85.) Mother argues this finding does not support the trial
court’s conclusion “that the children are neglected or that the coercive
intervention of the court is necessary.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) She asserts
“[Children] are not CHINS simply because Mother failed to fully cooperate
with Lampkins.” (Id. at 18.) In support of her argument, she cites In re T.H.,
856 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), and M.K. v. Indiana DCS, 964 N.E.2d
240, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Both are inapposite.
[13] The CHINS action in In re T.H. was based on Father’s improper storage of his
handgun and his refusal to cooperate with DCS services. We reversed the trial
court’s CHINS adjudication because there was no evidence “the gun still
endangered the children at the time of the hearing in this case.” In re T.H., 856
N.E.2d at 1251. Additionally, “[w]e decline[d] to say that failing to complete
services necessarily means a child is a CHINS unless there is some evidence of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 7 of 10
substantial parental shortcomings endangering a child that needed to be
addressed by these services.” Id. Such is not the case here, as Father’s drug use
has not been remedied like the gun storage issues in In re T.H.
[14] In M.K., we also reversed a CHINS adjudication despite a parent being
uncooperative, explaining that “to the extent the Guardian ad Litem cites
Father’s evasiveness or refusal to answer questions as evidence supporting the
judgment, we note that Father’s reticence pertained to disclosing specific facts
surrounding the events in Texas involving his own mother’s treatment of
Mother, based seemingly on racial grounds.” M.K., 964 N.E.2d at 247 n.8
(internal citations to record omitted). M.K. does not apply here, as the housing
issues that precipitated DCS’s involvement with the family in M.K. had been
resolved by the time of the hearing, whereas Father’s drug use has not been
remedied.
[15] Herein, Children are not CHINS because Mother did not cooperate with her
therapist. Children are CHINS because Father used drugs in the familial home,
overdosed, and has not sought proper treatment, and Mother’s reluctance to
acknowledge Father’s behaviors creates concern about her ability to protect
Children if Father continues to use drugs.
[16] The trial court also found:
[Children’s] physical or mental condition is [sic] seriously
impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability,
refusal, or neglect of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian to
supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 8 of 10
care, education, or supervision. [Father] used heroin at the
family residence with [Jo.C.] in the home and nearly died in
[Jo.C.’s] bed. This is not the first time that [Father] has
overdosed. [Father] has failed to seek treatment for his addiction
and continues to use illicit substances. [Mother] denies her
husband’s drug use and alleges that she would not allow him to
return to the home if he were using illicit substances. However,
[Mother] picked [Father] up from the hospital after his most
recent overdose and allowed him to remain in the home until the
involvement of the DCS. [Mother] has failed to acknowledge the
severe substance abuse on the part of her husband and protect the
children from the same.
(App. Vol. II at 86.) Mother argues the trial court’s finding, “[Mother] picked
[Father] up from the hospital after his most recent overdose and allowed him to
remain in the home until the involvement of the DCS[,]” (id.), does not support
the conclusion “that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary.” (Br. of
Appellant at 18.)
[17] However, that finding was not listed as supporting the trial court’s conclusion
the coercive intervention of the court is necessary. Instead, it was cited as a
reason Children’s physical or mental conditions were seriously impaired or
endangered as a result of Parents’ inability, refusal, or neglect to supply
necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision.
Further, even if the finding were erroneous, “even an erroneous finding is not
fatal to a trial court’s judgment if the remaining valid findings and conclusions
support the judgment, rendering the erroneous finding superfluous and
harmless as a matter of law.” Curley v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections & Registration,
896 N.E.2d 24, 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 9 of 10
[18] Here, DCS presented evidence Father used heroin while at home with Jo.C.
and overdosed. Father had not obtained substance abuse treatment or
participated in drug screens at the time of the fact-finding or dispositional
hearings, though he had been ordered to do so by the trial court. While Mother
ensured Father did not live with Mother and Children, she did not acknowledge
Father had a drug problem or that Father overdosed. We conclude DCS
presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings and the
findings supported the conclusions that resulted in Children being declared
CHINS. See, e.g., In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (evidence
sufficient to support CHINS adjudication when Mother was under the influence
of marijuana while child was in the home).
Conclusion
[19] DCS presented evidence Father used heroin in the family home, overdosed,
and had not obtained treatment. In addition, there was evidence Mother
refused to acknowledge Father’s drug problem and had not benefitted from
services. Based thereon, we conclude that evidence supported the trial court’s
findings and those findings supported the trial court’s conclusion Children were
CHINS. Accordingly, we affirm.
[20] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-JC-1877 | December 14, 2017 Page 10 of 10