In the Matter of: K.D., a Child in Need of Services, S.D. (Mother) and Ke.D. (Father) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION                                                  FILED
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this                     May 24 2016, 9:01 am
    Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as                         CLERK
    precedent or cited before any court except for the               Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,                  and Tax Court
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT S.D.                              ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Paula M. Sauer                                           Gregory F. Zoeller
    Danville, Indiana                                        Attorney General of Indiana
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT KE.D.                             Robert J. Henke
    James D. Boyer
    Brian J. Johnson                                         Deputy Attorneys General
    Danville, Indiana                                        Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In the Matter of: K.D., a Child                          May 24, 2016
    in Need of Services,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    32A05-1510-JC-1724
    S.D. (Mother) and Ke.D.
    Appeal from the Hendricks Superior
    (Father),                                                Court
    Appellants-Respondents,                                  The Honorable Karen M. Love,
    Judge
    v.
    Cause No. 32D03-1505-JC-40
    Indiana Department of Child
    Services,
    Appellee-Petitioner.
    Bradford, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016      Page 1 of 28
    Case Summary
    [1]   S.D. (“Mother”) and Ke.D. (“Father”) (collectively, “the Parents”) appeal from
    the juvenile court’s adjudication that K.D. (“Child”) is a child in need of
    services (“CHINS”). Mother, Father, Child, and Child’s three older siblings—
    Ke’T.D., Ke’S.D., and H.D.—live together in Avon. In April of 2015, the
    Hendricks County Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that
    Father had physically abused Child, then six years old, in the home Father and
    Mother shared with Child and their other three children (“the Home”).
    [2]   DCS petitioned the juvenile court to adjudicate Child a CHINS. During the
    CHINS proceeding, Father admitted that he had hit Child twice in the head as
    punishment for missing his school bus but expressed no remorse and denied
    that he had done anything wrong. Mother also indicated that she believed
    Father had done nothing wrong. The juvenile court adjudicated Child a
    CHINS, ordered that Child remain placed with Parents, and issued
    participation orders for both Parents. Father and Mother both contend that
    there is insufficient evidence to sustain a finding that Child is a CHINS.
    Mother also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering
    her to fulfill certain requirements. Because we conclude that the juvenile court
    did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 2 of 28
    [3]   On April 29, 2015, DCS became aware of a report that Child, born on August
    6, 2008, had a cut on his face and scratches, which Child claimed were caused
    by Father throwing him against a wall. Family Case Manager Veronica Fritsch
    (“FCM Fritsch”) interviewed Child at school and noticed that he also had a
    bump on the back of his head. FCM Fritsch, accompanied by a police officer,
    went to the Home. Father admitted that he had spanked Child on his “bottom”
    and indicated that the scratch on Child’s face could have been caused by his
    ring. Tr. p. 41. During the visit, Father was “[h]ostile” and “[h]e would puff
    up his chest [and] get very loud.” Tr. p. 42.
    [4]   On April 30, 2015, Child was examined by a doctor and told the doctor that
    Father had hit him on the back of the head. FCM Fritsch also visited the Home
    and spoke with Mother that day. While Father was in the home, Mother did
    not provide much information, looked down frequently and “would not fully
    open up.” Tr. p. 44. Mother was more willing to talk when Father left, but was
    not very willing to speak about domestic violence.
    [5]   On May 11, 2015, DCS filed a petition alleging Child to be a CHINS due to
    Father’s physical abuse. By the end of May of 2015, FCM Kristen Miller had
    taken over the case, and visited the Home with Guardian Ad Litem Suzanne
    Conger (“GAL Conger”) on June 12, 2015. Father answered the door and,
    after FCM Miller and GAL Conger interviewed the children, took them on a
    tour of the Home with Mother. As FCM Miller and GAL Conger were leaving
    the Home, Father became “intimidating” and “hostile[,]”asked FCM Miller
    why she had lied in court, and “puffed himself up.” Tr. pp. 98, 117.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 3 of 28
    [6]   On July 1, 2015, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing. On July 30, the
    juvenile court issued its order adjudicating Child to be a CHINS, which order
    provides in part as follows:
    12.     Steven Patton is a resident physician at Community
    Health Network. On 4-30-15 he examined [Child] at an
    outpatient center in Speedway. Dr. Patton observed an
    abrasion under his left eye and a contusion on the left side
    of his head and another contusion on the right side of his
    head. On the left side the raised bruised area was 2 by 3
    centimeters and on the right side the raised bruise was 3 by
    4 centimeters.
    13.     Mother was with [Child] during the exam. Dr. Patton
    asked Mother how [Child] got the injuries and Mother did
    not respond. The doctor then asked [Child] how he got
    the injuries. [Child] initially said he was lifting weights
    and he fell and hit his head on some weights, then [Child]
    said his Father hit him in the back of the head for
    discipline for missing the bus. Based on the contusion and
    reason given the doctor decided to do an x-ray to be sure
    [Child] did not have a skull fracture. The x-ray was within
    normal limits. Dr. Patton was concerned about a possible
    brain contusion or brain bruise so he explained to Mother
    that she needed to watch [Child] for any signs of lethargy,
    confusion, headache, or muscle weakness and if she
    observed any signs she needed to call the clinic and let
    them know.
    14.     A contusion is a bruise with swelling.
    15.     During Dr. Patton’s exam [Child] did tell the doctor that
    the back of his head hurt.
    16.     Dr. Patton did exam the rest of [Child]’s body and did not
    observe anything else that was abnormal.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 4 of 28
    17.     Dr. Patton noted that it is unusual for a parent of a six year
    old not to respond when asked how their child was
    injured.
    18.     Dr. Patton estimated that [Child]’s injuries would be
    visible for 3-4 weeks.
    19.     When [Child] told Dr. Patton that Father hit him in the
    back of the head [Child] looked at his Mother and said
    “Mom knows what’s going on”. Mother just sat there
    with a sad look on her face.
    20.     The Court finds Dr. Patton credible and helpful in
    explaining [Child]’s injuries.
    21.     Dr. James Williams is employed at Community Westview
    residency clinic in Speedway as a preceptor faculty
    member. Dr. Williams has been in family practice for
    about 40 years. He was supervising Dr. Patton during the
    exam of [Child] on 5-1-15. Dr. Williams also observed
    [Child]’s contusion or bruising behind the ears. Court
    finds Dr. Williams credible and his testimony is consistent
    with the pictures Ms. Fritsch took of [Child]. The
    contusions on the back of [Child]’s head would be
    consistent with a blow to the back of the head or throwing
    a child into the wall or bed or falling on a weight.
    22.     Dr. Williams was present during the entire examination.
    Dr. Williams observed that [Child]’s injuries were
    consistent with [Child]’s statement that his father hit him.
    Dr. Williams explained that [Child]’s fall and hitting his
    head on the weight happened during the incident when
    Father hit [Child] in the back of the head for missing the
    bus.
    23.     [Child] was alert and oriented during the exam. Mother
    did not offer the doctors any explanation for [Child]’s
    injuries. She told them she was at work. She did tell them
    that her father lived with them and her father told her he
    heard yelling and screaming at the time of the injuries.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 5 of 28
    25.     Angela Hartman is employed at Community Westview
    Clinic in Speedway…. On 5-1-15 she met with [Child]
    and Mother. Ms. Hartman asked Mother if she felt safe.
    Mother would not look at Ms. Hartman and tears welled
    up in her eyes. Ms. Hartman explained to Mother that it
    was her responsibility to keep herself safe and to keep her
    children safe. Mother just looked at Ms. Hartman with
    tears welling up in her eyes. Ms. Hartman was very
    concerned. Ms. Hartman has 30 years experience and is
    on the behavioral faculty at Community Westview
    Hospital, Speedway Family Practice Clinic.
    Mother did not take [Child] to the doctor on her own
    volition. The clinic knew before the exam that [Child]’s
    injuries were a CHINS case.
    26.     Kristin Miller is a family case manager for DCS. She took
    over the case from Ms. Fritsch in late May early June
    2015. Ms. Miller obtained [Child]’s medical records
    which were admitted as Exhibit 3.
    27.     Ms. Hartman’s note contained in Exhibit 3 states:
    “Patient seen in conjunction with his mother, Dr. Patton,
    pre-ceptor, Dr. Williams, and myself on 4/30/15. Patient
    is a 6 year old African American male who was seated on
    the exam table dressed in a patient’s gown. He was busy
    interacting with his mother, who was seated at the end of
    the table. When asked about his injuries, he was rather
    elusive, looking at his mother, and asking her to answer.
    He had already shared the information below with Drs.
    Patton, and Williams, as well as, the MA, Carla. He
    engaged readily in answering my question about how he
    had gotten the raised bump behind his ear, and the
    soreness of the area behind his other ear, to which he
    responded that his ““daddy had hit me in the head.””. [sic
    passim] He said that ““my head hit the wall, and I hit a
    weight, near the weight bench.”” When asked about
    whether he has seen his dad hit his mom, he looked at her,
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 6 of 28
    and asked her to answer, ““because she knows””. She
    became quiet, tears welled up in her eyes, but said nothing,
    other than assuring her son with ““I am okay””, and …
    ““I am all right””. Reviewed with her the need to get
    protection for herself, and/or her children and that it is her
    responsibility to protect them from harm. She admitted
    that she too, uses spanking as a form of discipline. She
    shared that she was not aware of this current situation,
    because she had been at work.
    He went on to say to his mother that she ““is always
    stressed””, “you know you are, mommy”. She asked him
    why he had not told her about being hit by his daddy?
    And he said that ““I know that you are stressed””. She
    said nothing, looking at him the whole time. When asked
    by myself if she felt safe in the relationship, she looked
    away, and did not answer. Thanked her for bringing [him]
    in to meet with the doctors, who remained in the room,
    and encouraged her to continue to work with DCS, and to
    keep herself, and her children safe from harm. She signed
    a medical release for us to share with DCS, and took her
    son to get an x-ray of his skull, at the x-ray department
    across the hall.”
    28.     Dr. Williams[’s] note contained in Exhibit 3 states:
    “This patient was seen and examined, and discussed with
    the resident physician. See the resident note for details. I
    was physically present during key portions of the
    encounter and I actively participated in the medical
    decision making. Key History: Alleged physical abuse by
    child’s father with an area of abrasions to the right side of
    his face from hitting/slapping, and an abrasion to the post
    auricular area of the head on the left side, and an area of a
    large contusion with swelling on the right posterior
    auricular area of the head in the area of the right Mastoid
    sinus. This measures approximately 4 cms X 3.5 cms.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 7 of 28
    Key Exam: Dr. Patton and I thoroughly examined 6 y/o
    male child, [Child], and found him to be very intelligent
    and alert. He was seen with his mother in the room. She
    related that she was not home at the time of the alleged
    abuse. His exam was unremarkable except for the above
    mentioned abrasions and contusion of his head. He had
    no recent injuries of his extremities and no abrasions or
    contusions of his buttocks or of the penis/scrotal areas.
    He was very alert and for a 6 y/o child answered questions
    appropriately. He stated that his father had hit him on his
    face and had thrown him either down on his bed or into
    the wall. His posterior auricular head injuries he initially
    stated were a result of this but then related that the left
    sided posterior auricular abrasion was from attempting to
    lift weights although he and also his mother could not
    explain how this could occur. Assessment: 1. Physical
    Abuse by child’s biological father with [a]brasions and
    contusions as described above.
    Plan: 1. A thorough physical exam was done and
    documented by Dr. Patton and myself. 2. Social Services
    was made aware and discussed the case thoroughly with
    both the child and the child’s mother. 3. Pictures of the
    abrasions and the swollen area with a large contusion were
    taken. 4. A skull x-ray was ordered and done to rule out
    any bony injury to the posterior or facial areas of the head.
    5. Social Services will report findings to Child Protection
    Agency.”
    29.     Dr. Patton’s note contained in Exhibit 3 states:
    “This event happened with the biological father, “they all
    live in the same house” CPS became involved due to the
    school having a concern. A teacher asked him what
    happened to his face he told the teacher his father scarred
    his face after discipline. They took the child to the office
    and asked him what happened and they also spoke to one
    of his siblings that also go to school. She has a meeting
    with mother and father basically the plan was to document
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 8 of 28
    proper discipline and also set up a safety plan for her
    (abusive relationship with child’s father)
    PT states he was in school and people were concerned
    about his face because someone “hit him and slapped
    him” When asked where he was hit he points at the left
    side of his chin. Pt goes on to mention he was also
    ““thrown”” onto the bed but his ““daddy told him it
    didn’t happen”” Pt states he was being punished because
    he missed the school bus. I asked pt what normally
    happens when he’s being punished and he replied that he
    [is] normally punished by getting hit with hands: belts, or
    cords. Pt goes on to tell me that he has bumps to the back
    of his head. When initially asked how did the bumps
    occur he says he fell on some weights when he tried to lift
    them and fell over (later on in the conversation patient
    mentions that his father hit on the side of the head and
    pointed toward the back side of his head on the right side;
    he then tells me that his father told him that he fell on
    some weights but ““its not the way my story is””)
    When asked if the patient has been touched in any
    inappropriate manner “genitals, anus, any area of the body
    in … particular that would make him feel uncomfortable)
    or required to touch anyone else he said no. Pt lives in a 7
    member home (3 siblings 13, 11, 9), grandfather, mother,
    and father.
    ….pt states that his face and the back of his head hurts.”
    30.     Ms. Miller had difficulty setting up a home visit. In late
    May the attorneys arranged a visit and [Father] didn’t
    want to do the home visit. Mother left a voicemail
    cancelling the visit. The attorneys got involved and Ms.
    Miller went to the home on a Friday afternoon. Mother
    was home but Father was not. Mother told Ms. Miller that
    the visit was cancelled. Mother did not want to do the visit
    without Father present. Eventually Mother allowed Ms.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 9 of 28
    Miller into the entryway of the home and to speak with the
    children in the entryway.
    31.     On 6-12-15 Mother arranged for Ms. Miller and GAL,
    Suzanne Conger, to visit the home and see the children.
    When Ms. Miller and Ms. Conger arrived Mother was not
    home. Father was home with the children.
    32.     Suzanne Conger has practiced law for thirty years and
    served as guardian ad litem for over 1,000 children. For
    three years Ms. Conger was head of custody advocate and
    guardian ad litem program in Charlotte, North Carolina.
    The Court finds Ms. Conger an experienced, qualified,
    and credible guardian ad litem.
    33.     Ms. Miller is concerned that there is domestic violence
    within the relationship between Father and Mother and a
    concern that Mother is not able to protect the children
    from domestic violence.
    34.     When Ms. Miller and Ms. Conger arrived on 6-12-15
    Father was present with the four children. The children
    were lined up according to their ages on a loveseat. Father
    told the children to be respectful and knock on the door
    when they were finished and Father went outside the
    house. Ms. Conger then introduced herself to the children
    and she asked the three older children to give them some
    time to talk with [Child] alone. As they talked with
    [Child] Ms. Miller noticed a cell phone on the coffee table
    and mentioned it and [Child] yelled for his older brother to
    come and get the phone. [Ke’S.D.] got the phone and did
    a special knock on the door, one, two, three, four and
    Father opened the door and [Ke’S.D.] gave the phone to
    Father. When Father saw all four children were not still
    lined up at the door Father told the kids to “get out here”.
    It was a rainy day with thunder but the older kids got their
    shoes on and went outside as Father ordered.
    Ms. Conger and Ms. Miller continued their interview of
    [Child]. Ms. Conger observed that [Child] was confused,
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 10 of 28
    scared and very careful with the way he said things. After
    they finished talking with [Child], [Child] went to the door
    and did the special knock and Father opened the door for
    him. Father told [Child] to get his shoes on and “get out
    here”. Father grabbed [Child] by the back of his neck and
    ushered him out and [Child] cowered down. Ms. Conger
    demonstrated to the Court Father’s grabbing of [Child]’s
    neck and [Child]’s cowering response. The Court notes
    Father’s grabbing [Child] by the neck and ushering him
    out was unnecessary as [Child] was complying with the
    instructions Father gave him in front of Ms. Miller and
    Ms. Conger. The other children were outside with Father
    and could see Father grab [Child] by the neck and
    [Child]’s fearful response. The court finds this was a
    brazen attempt by Father to intimidate [Child], the other
    children, Ms. Miller and Ms. Conger. Father’s actions
    were also consistent with his attempts to intimidate Ms.
    Fritsch during her interview of Father and his attempt to
    intimidate Ms. Miller later on 6-12-15. [Ke’T.D.],
    [Ke’S.D.] and [H.D.] were each interviewed separately
    and each did the special knock when they were finished.
    35.     After Ms. Miller and Ms. Conger interviewed all the
    children they were getting ready to leave and Father came
    back inside, got hostile, pointed at Ms. Miller and accused
    her of lying in court. Ms. Conger was concerned because
    Father was blocking her way out the door. Mother
    scooted around Father and offered to take Ms. Miller and
    Ms. Conger on a tour of the home. Mother then led Ms.
    Miller and Ms. Conger through the home and Father
    followed them. When they were upstairs Ms. Conger
    commented on their nice back yard and Father said to
    “stop that chatter”. Mother immediately obeyed him and
    walked them through the rest of the house. Father did
    refuse for Ms. Conger and Ms. Miller to see the basement
    and they left. After they left Father called Ms. Miller and
    offered to let them see the basement. Neither Ms. Miller
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 11 of 28
    nor Ms. Conger felt it was a good situation to return to the
    home on 6-12-15 given Father’s hostile demeanor.
    36.     The children have access to the basement and hang out
    down there. DCS needed to see the basement. Father
    used intimidation to control what Ms. Miller and Ms.
    Conger saw on 6-12-15 and what they heard from the
    children and Mother.
    37.     The Court finds Ms. Miller and Ms. Conger credible.
    38.     Father is the pastor of the Martindale Church of Christ.
    Cedric Brown is a deacon in that church and sees the …
    family regularly at church and church functions. Mr.
    Brown has also been to the [Home] twice during the past
    eight years. Mr. Brown has not personally observed any
    inappropriate behavior by anyone in the … family. Mr.
    Brown explained that their church believes that discipline
    of children is an essential requirement of parents and that
    physical discipline can be appropriate. Mr. Brown did
    agree that physical discipline could cross the line and be
    inappropriate if the parent was beating up the child or
    throwing a six year old child into the wall.
    39.     Father testified on 7-l-15. Father stated he has primary
    responsibility for bringing up his son and total
    responsibility for his education. Father admitted that he
    intentionally slapped [Child] in the face on or about 4-28-
    15 or 4-29-15. Father demonstrated how he slapped
    [Child] and the Court heard the sound of his strike. Father
    admitted that he slapped [Child] once and [Child] was still
    standing so Father slapped him again and [Child] fell.
    Father weighs 325 pounds and is over six feet tall. [Child]
    weighed 61 pounds when he was examined by the doctors.
    Father is right handed and he was wearing a ring which
    was the same ring he wore in court. The ring appeared to
    be raised on the top similar to a college or sports ring.
    When Father demonstrated how he slapped [Child] the
    Court could hear the sound of Father’s smack. Father
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 12 of 28
    admitted that he wanted [Child] to feel the smack and he
    did not smack him on the bottom because [Child]’s clothes
    would cushion his blow. Father’s ring caused the cut on
    [Child]’s face. For a right handed man to do that Father’s
    strike must have been more of a closed fist and not open
    handed.
    41.     Father explained that he wakes the children up for school
    and they “police each other”. Father stated that [H.D.]
    and [Child] leave right after [Ke’S.D.] in the mornings.
    Father does not remind the children that they need to go
    out for the bus. Father stated that waking them up and
    telling them one time to get ready for school is sufficient.
    42.     [Child] missed the bus on 4-28 or 4-29 the date Father
    injured [Child].
    43.     The Court does not believe Father’s testimony that he
    progressively disciplines the children. When Father speaks
    he expects his children and Mother to obey him
    immediately. The Court finds Father is not credible.
    44.     Father did not tell Mother about his “discipline” of [Child]
    on 4-28 or 4-29.
    45.     The Court finds Father acted unreasonably on 4-28 or 4-29
    when he smacked [Child] in the head twice with enough
    force to knock [Child] down—simply because [Child]
    missed the school bus that morning.
    46.     Missing the school bus is an inconvenient time
    management problem not direct disobedience. It is not
    unusual for a six year old to need reminding that he needs
    to be at the bus stop when the bus comes. [Child] is in the
    first grade. [Child] is the youngest child. He is unlikely to
    be able to influence the older children to miss the bus.
    Given his age [Child] would likely benefit from Father
    teaching him how to manage time and a reminder near the
    time the bus arrives.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 13 of 28
    It is unreasonable for a 324 pound man to deliberately hit
    a six year old child weighing 61 pounds in the head twice.
    [Child] was still standing from the first blow so Father hit
    him again until [Child] fell. Father’s testimony about the
    nature of his blows is inconsistent with [Child]’s injuries as
    documented by the pictures and medical records.
    Punching a child in the head is dangerous.
    47.     Children who suffer physical abuse or witness domestic
    abuse between their parents often keep it a secret and do
    not talk with others about the abuse. The Court believes it
    is highly probable that Mother and the other children are
    also victims of Father’s physical abuse but DCS did not
    prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    *       *        *       *
    11.     DCS has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
    [Child] is a child in need of services as defined in IC 31-34-
    1-1 in that his physical or his mental condition is seriously
    impaired or seriously endangered as a result of Father’s
    use of excessive and unreasonable physical discipline on or
    about 4-28-15 and Father and Mother’s refusal to
    recognize that Father’s use of physical discipline was
    excessive and unreasonable on that date. [Child] needs
    parental supervision, guidance and correcting that is
    reasonable and safe. Without [the] Court’s intervention
    [Child] will continue to be subject to unreasonable
    physical discipline from Father. Children who suffer
    unreasonable physical discipline suffer emotionally.
    [Child]’s doctor exam demonstrates that [Child] is very
    concerned for his Mother to the point he did not tell her
    what Father did to him. [Child] told his GAL that he was
    confused. Intimidating a child as Father has done causes a
    child to suffer emotionally. [Child] needs counseling
    which he is unlikely to receive without Court intervention.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 14 of 28
    12.     A child is a CHINS when he is endangered by parental
    action or inaction.
    13.     In this case it is Father’s actions and Mother’s failure to
    protect [Child] that causes the court to find [Child] is a
    CHINS.
    14.     Much of the evidence is circumstantial but the cumulative
    effect of the evidence and concern of the experienced
    professionals causes the court to be very concerned for
    [Child]’s safety without court intervention.
    Father needs help to recognize appropriate discipline
    limits and Mother needs help to recognize appropriate
    discipline limits and enforce those limits and protect
    [Child] from excessive unreasonable physical discipline.
    Based on Father’s testimony and his demeanor the Court
    concludes Father does not believe he did anything wrong
    at any time.
    15.     IC Code 31-34-1-15 specifically states:
    (1) “Limit the right of a parent, guardian, or custodian of a
    child to use reasonable corporal punishment when
    disciplining the child.
    (2) Limit the lawful practice or teaching of religious
    beliefs.”
    16.     A CHINS case is a civil case not criminal. In Willis v. State
    
    888 N.E.2d 177
    (2008) the Indiana Supreme Court
    recognized the right of parents to direct the upbringing and
    education of their children including the use of reasonable
    or moderate physical force to control behavior.
    17.     In Willis Justice Rucker explained that Indiana adopted
    the Restatement of Law (Second) Torts and Justice Rucker
    outlined factors to be considered in determining the
    reasonableness of punishment. Justice Rucker stated:
    “The Restatement provides, “A parent is privileged to
    apply such reasonable force or to impose such reasonable
    confinement upon his [or her] child as he [or she]
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 15 of 28
    reasonably believes to be necessary for its proper control,
    training, or education.”” Restatement of the Law
    (Second) Torts, § 147(1) (1965). We adopt the
    Restatement View. Not only is it entirely consistent with
    the law in this jurisdiction, but also it provides guidance
    on the factors that may be considered in determining the
    reasonableness of punishment. It reads:
    In determining whether force or confinement is
    reasonable for the control, training, or education of
    a child, the following factors are to be considered:
    (a) whether the actor is a parent;
    (b) the age, sex, and physical and mental condition
    of the child;
    (c) the nature of his offense and his apparent
    motive;
    (d) the influence of his example upon other children
    of the same family or group;
    (e) whether the force or confinement is reasonably
    necessary and appropriate to compel obedience to a
    proper command;
    (f) whether it is disproportionate to the offense,
    unnecessarily degrading, or likely to cause Serious
    or permanent harm.
    Restatement, supra, § 150. We hasten to add that this list is not
    exhaustive. There may be other factors unique to a particular
    case that should be taken into consideration. And obviously, not
    all of the listed factors may be relevant or applicable in every
    case. But in either event they should be balanced against each
    other, giving appropriate weight as the circumstances dictate, in
    determining whether the force is reasonable.”
    Therefore, the Court finds that [Child] is a child in need of
    services as alleged in the petition.
    Father’s App. pp. 37-47; 49-51.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 16 of 28
    [7]   On September 23, 2015, the juvenile court issued dispositional and parental
    participation orders. (Mother’s App. 77-81). The juvenile court ordered
    Parents, inter alia, to (1) complete parenting, domestic violence, mental health,
    and psychological assessments and follow resulting recommendations; (2)
    participate in home-based and family counseling; (3) contact their FCM weekly;
    (4) notify their FCM of any changes in household or contact information and of
    any arrests or criminal charges within five days; (5) allow DCS and GAL
    unannounced visits; (5) cease physical discipline of Child; (6) obtain DCS
    approval of Child’s caregivers; (7) meet their own and Child’s medical and
    mental health needs; and (8) reimburse DCS for services that benefit Child.
    (Mother’s App. 73-75). In addition, Father was ordered to participate in the
    Father Engagement program and follow all recommendations thereof.
    (Mother’s App. 75).
    [8]   Both Parents contend that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile
    court’s adjudication that Child is a CHINS. Mother also contends that the
    juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering Mother to undergo certain
    evaluations and satisfy requirements allegedly unrelated to the CHINS
    adjudication.
    Discussion and Decision
    [9]   With respect to CHINS determinations, the Indiana Supreme Court has stated
    the following:
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 17 of 28
    [a] CHINS proceeding is a civil action; thus, “the State 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). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge
    the credibility of the witnesses. Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of
    Pub. Welfare, 
    592 N.E.2d 1232
    , 1235 (Ind. 1992). We consider
    only the evidence that supports the [juvenile] court’s decision and
    reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. 
    Id. We reverse
    only
    upon a showing that the decision of the [juvenile] court was
    clearly erroneous. 
    Id. … There
    are three elements DCS must prove for a juvenile court to
    adjudicate a child a CHINS. DCS must first prove the child is
    under the age of eighteen; DCS must prove one of eleven
    different statutory circumstances exist that would make the child
    a CHINS; and finally, in all cases, DCS must prove the child
    needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not
    receiving and that he or she is unlikely to be provided or accepted
    without the coercive intervention of the court. In re 
    N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105
    .
    In re K.D., 
    962 N.E.2d 1249
    , 1253 (Ind. 2012) (footnote omitted).
    [10]   Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, on which the juvenile court based its
    disposition, provides that a child is a CHINS before the child becomes eighteen
    years of age if:
    (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
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 18 of 28
    (B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive
    intervention of the court.
    [11]   As the Indiana Supreme Court has observed,
    Juvenile law is constructed upon the foundation of the State’s
    parens patriae power, rather than the adversarial nature of corpus
    juris. Kent v. United States, 
    383 U.S. 541
    , 554, 
    86 S. Ct. 1045
    , 
    16 L. Ed. 2d 84
    (1966). Indeed, juvenile court jurisdiction “is rooted
    in social welfare philosophy rather than in the corpus juris.” 
    Id. The purpose
    of the CHINS adjudication is to “protect the
    children, not punish parents.” In re N.E., [
    919 N.E.2d 102
    , 106
    (Ind. 2010)]. The process of the CHINS proceeding focuses on
    “the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or innocence as
    in a criminal proceeding.” 
    Id. In re
    K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1255
    .
    [12]   Mother and Father argue that the juvenile court’s finding that section 31-34-1-1
    was satisfied constitutes an abuse of discretion because the record did not
    contain sufficient evidence that Child’s physical or mental condition was
    seriously impaired or seriously endangered. DCS, however, was not required
    to establish that Child had already been harmed. “The CHINS statute … does
    not require that a court wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene.” In re A.H., 
    913 N.E.2d 303
    , 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Roark v. Roark, 
    551 N.E.2d 865
    ,
    872 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)). “Rather, a child is a CHINS when he or she is
    endangered by parental action or inaction.” 
    Id. With this
    in mind, we
    conclude that the record contains ample evidence to support the juvenile court’s
    disposition.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 19 of 28
    [13]   Father argues first that his discipline of Child was reasonable. Father relies on
    the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Willis v. State, 
    888 N.E.2d 177
    (Ind.
    2008), which addressed the scope of the parental privilege to discipline as a
    defense to criminal battery. Although a criminal case, we believe, as did the
    juvenile court, that the factors considered by the Willis court in evaluating
    whether punishment is reasonable are helpful here:
    In determining whether force or confinement is reasonable for
    the control, training, or education of a child, the following factors
    are to be considered:
    (a) whether the actor is a parent;
    (b) the age, sex, and physical and mental condition of the
    child;
    (c) the nature of his offense and his apparent motive;
    (d) the influence of his example upon other children of the
    same family or group;
    (e) whether the force or confinement is reasonably
    necessary and appropriate to compel obedience to a proper
    command;
    (f) whether it is disproportionate to the offense,
    unnecessarily degrading, or likely to cause serious or
    permanent harm.
    
    Id. at 182
    (citation omitted).
    [14]   Father’s status as Child’s parent confers upon him greater latitude to punish
    Child than other adults would have. Although all indications are that Child is
    generally healthy, Child was only six years old and weighed sixty-one pounds
    when examined after the incident that gave rise to this CHINS proceeding. In
    contrast, Father weighed over 300 pounds and stands over six feet tall. Child’s
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 20 of 28
    offense was missing the school bus, and there is no indication that he was
    motivated by any desire to wilfully misbehave. As for the possible effect of
    Father’s discipline of Child on the other children, there is no indication that any
    of Child’s siblings had problems with missing the school bus or were present
    when Father struck Child. All in all, the first four Willis factors would seem to
    weigh only slightly against Father’s discipline being reasonable, mainly due to
    the lack of any evidence of willful disobedience on Child’s part.
    [15]   The last two factors, however, weigh heavily against any conclusion that
    Father’s actions were reasonable. Father admitted to striking Child twice in the
    head on or about April 29, 2015, and the juvenile court found that, based on the
    physical evidence, Father likely struck him with a closed fist. This level of force
    is disproportionate to Child’s offense, especially given the extremely large size
    difference between Father and Child. It seems to us that any number of less-
    forceful options should have been tried before the one Father chose. 1
    Moreover, striking Child in the head with enough force to knock him off of his
    feet seems likely to cause serious harm. Even if the blows themselves did not
    cause serious harm, a fall easily could have. Our consideration of the Willis
    factors leads us to the conclusion that Father’s use of force on Child was
    unreasonable.
    1
    Father testified that he practiced progressive discipline and that less extreme options had failed to correct
    Child’s behavior with respect to missing the school bus, but the juvenile court specifically found this
    testimony to be incredible.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016                 Page 21 of 28
    [16]   Mother and Father also both argue that the incident was isolated, even if
    Father’s actions were unreasonable. The record and the juvenile court’s
    findings seriously undercut this argument. The record indicates a history of
    violence between Father and Mother and previous DCS involvement related to
    substantiated reports of abuse of another child. In 2003, Father was arrested
    and charged with breaking and entering Mother’s apartment and domestic
    violence against her. Mother has been arrested and charged with battery of
    Father. In 2006 and 2008, DCS became involved due to allegations that
    Mother had inappropriately disciplined one of Child’s older siblings.
    [17]   Moreover, there is no indication that either Father or Mother feels that Father
    did anything wrong. Father has shown no remorse for the incident, testifying
    that physical discipline is part of his faith and that his discipline of Child on the
    occasion in question was “appropriate[.]” Tr. p. 136. Mother agreed with
    Father’s assessment, verifying that she saw “nothing wrong” with Father
    striking Child. Tr. p. 204. Parents’ failure to recognize the unreasonableness of
    Father’s actions makes it likely that similar situations will arise in the future.
    The history of violence in Child’s family, along with Parents’ failure to
    recognize that Father did anything wrong, undercut any notion that the incident in
    question was isolated. DCS produced sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that
    Child’s physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 22 of 28
    II. Whether the Juvenile Court Abused its Discretion in
    Ordering Mother to Participate in Certain Services
    [18]   Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering her to
    (A) undergo psychological and mental health evaluations and comply with
    resulting recommendations; (B) undergo a domestic violence evaluation; (C)
    maintain suitable housing; not permit possession or use of illegal substances in
    the Home; maintain a legal and stable source of income; see to it that Child is
    properly clothed, fed, supervised, and enrolled in school; (D) meet her own and
    Child’s medical and mental health needs; (E) refrain from using any form of
    physical discipline; and (F) reimburse DCS for services to benefit the Child.
    A. Psychological and Mental Health Evaluations
    [19]   Mother argues that there is no evidence to support the juvenile court’s order
    that she undergo psychological or mental health evaluations. The record
    contains evidence, however, that Mother is subject to high levels of stress,
    which may be causing atypical behavior and affecting her mental health. When
    Dr. Patton asked Mother what happened to Child, Mother did not respond at
    all, which Dr. Williams indicated was not typical. Moreover, the hospital
    social worker observed that Mother avoided eye contact, was unresponsive, and
    became tearful when asked about safety in her home. Parents’ history and
    Mother’s demeanor indicate that her situation might well be affecting her
    mental health. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering
    Mother to submit to mental health evaluations.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 23 of 28
    B. Domestic Violence Evaluations
    [20]   Mother argues that because there were no substantiated instances of domestic
    violence between Parents arising from the instant CHINS investigation, the
    juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering her to undergo a domestic
    violence evaluation. When first interviewed about the alleged abuse of Child,
    however, Mother would not deny the existence of domestic violence in the
    Home. Also, when Child was asked about whether he had seen Father hit
    Mother, he looked at Mother, and asked her to answer “because she knows[.]”
    State’s Ex. 3 p. 1. At this, Mother became quiet, tears welled up in her eyes,
    and she assured Child that “I am okay” and “I am all right[.]” State’s Ex. 3 p.
    1. When Dr. Patton asked Mother if she felt safe in the relationship, she looked
    away and did not respond. The record also indicates that Mother was aware of
    violence involving the children. When Child told Dr. Patton that Father hit
    him in the back of the head, Child looked at his Mother and said “you know
    what’s going on or mom knows[.]” Tr. p. 69. Mother did not verbally respond
    to Child’s statement but instead “looked sad.” Tr. p. 69.
    [21]   Moreover, Mother and Father both acknowledge that police have been involved
    with their family in the past due to allegations of domestic violence. Mother
    and Father have both been arrested and charged with domestic violence
    allegedly perpetrated on the other. Finally, this case represents the third time
    that DCS has been involved with the family, the previous two cases involving
    substantiated abuse of one of Child’s siblings. Given the history of domestic
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 24 of 28
    violence in the family, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in this
    regard.
    C. Maintain Suitable Housing; Not Permit Possession or Use of
    Illegal Substances in the Home; Maintain a Legal and Stable
    Source of Income; See to it that Child is Properly Clothed, Fed,
    Supervised, and Enrolled in School
    [22]   Mother characterizes the above-listed requirements as boilerplate and argues
    that they should therefore be eliminated. Boilerplate or not, we see nothing
    particularly controversial about the requirements at issue, many of which the
    law already requires of Mother. Taken together, the challenged terms require
    nothing more of Mother than that she remain a fit parent who has the means to
    safely care for Child and does so.
    D. Meet Mother’s and Child’s Medical
    and Mental Health Needs
    [23]   Mother argues that the order that she meets Child’s medical and mental health
    needs represents an invasion into her constitutionally-protected liberty interest
    in remaining free of unwarranted intrusions into the mind and body. “[O]ur
    Supreme Court has recognized that competent adults are entitled to make
    informed decisions about their medical care and that of their children.” In re
    A.M.-K., 
    983 N.E.2d 210
    , 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
    [24]   Mother relies on our decision in A.M.-K. In A.M.-K., the appellant argued the
    juvenile court’s order that she take all medications as prescribed infringed upon
    right to direct her own medical treatment. 
    Id. at 216.
    We agreed, noting that
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 25 of 28
    the appellant presented evidence that the medication at issue had serious side
    effects, interfered with her heart condition, and clashed with her religious
    beliefs. 
    Id. at 217.
    Mother has presented no such evidence here. There is no
    evidence that Mother has been directed by a medical professional to do
    anything in particular for Child, much less something to which she has raised
    any particular objection. Mother’s reliance on A.M.-K. is unavailing, and she
    has failed to establish an abuse of discretion in this regard.
    E. Refrain from Physical Discipline
    [25]   We recognize that “parents do have the right to use reasonable corporal
    punishment to discipline their children.” Lang v. Starke Cty. Office of Family &
    Children, 
    861 N.E.2d 366
    , 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “However, just as a
    parent’s right to raise his or her children is not absolute, we find no authority
    for the proposition that a parent’s right to use reasonable corporal punishment
    is absolute and cannot in some instances be subordinated to a child’s interests.”
    
    Id. We conclude
    that this case is one of those instances.
    [26]   Here, we have already concluded that the discipline that gave rise to this
    CHINS proceeding was unreasonable. It would be one thing if Father and
    Mother recognized this. Neither Father nor Mother, however, acknowledges
    the unreasonableness of Father’s actions or seems inclined to participate in
    court-ordered services in good faith. DCS’s primary responsibility must be
    Child’s safety. Ind. Code § 31-34-21-5.5(a) (“In determining the extent to
    which reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve a family are appropriate under
    this chapter, the child’s health and safety are of paramount concern.”). So long
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 26 of 28
    as neither Parent recognizes the difference between reasonable and
    unreasonable corporal punishment, the order to refrain from any form of
    physical discipline does not represent an abuse of discretion.
    F. Reimburse DCS for Services
    [27]   The juvenile court’s disposition provides, in part, that Parents “shall reimburse
    to the Local Office of the Department of Child Services, expenses for services to
    benefit the child.” Indiana Code section 31-40-1-3(a) provides, in part, that “[a]
    parent [of] a child adjudicated a delinquent child or a child in need of services
    … is financially responsible as provided in this chapter … for any services
    provided by or through the department.” Section 31-40-2-3(c) provides, in part
    that
    the juvenile court shall order the child’s parents or the guardian
    of the child’s estate to pay for, or reimburse the department for
    the cost of services provided to the child or the parent or
    guardian unless the court makes a specific finding that the parent
    or guardian is unable to pay or that justice would not be served
    by ordering payment from the parent or guardian.
    [28]   The juvenile court’s order is entirely consistent with the relevant provisions of
    Indiana Code section 31-40-2-3. Moreover, while it seems reasonable that
    Parents should be able to challenge reimbursement requests they consider to be
    unreasonable, there is no indication that any requests have been made.
    Consequently, we conclude that the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Ind. Dep’t
    of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 
    643 N.E.2d 331
    , 336 (Ind. 1994)
    (“Ripeness relates to the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 27 of 28
    on actual facts rather than on abstract possibilities, and are capable of being
    adjudicated on an adequately developed record.”). Without reimbursement
    requests, there is nothing to review. Mother has failed to establish an abuse of
    discretion.
    Conclusion
    [29]   We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s
    adjudication that Child is a CHINS. We further conclude that the juvenile
    court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Mother to participate in certain
    services.
    The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
    Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1510-JC-1724 | May 24, 2016   Page 28 of 28