In the Matter of S.C., Kad.C., and Kai.C., Children in Need of Services, K.C., Mother, and J.C., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 06 2020, 11:06 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kara E. Krothe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monroe County Public Defender’s Attorney General of Indiana
Office
Katherine A. Cornelius
Bloomington, Indiana Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of S.C., Kad.C., August 6, 2020
and Kai.C., Children in Need of Court of Appeals Case No.
Services, 19A-JC-2926
K.C., Mother, and J.C., Father Appeal from the
Monroe Circuit Court
Appellants-Respondents,
The Honorable
v. Stephen R. Galvin, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
Indiana Department of Child 53C07-1906-JC-313
53C07-1906-JC-314
Services
53C07-1906-JC-315
Appellee-Petitioner.
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 1 of 19
[1] K.C. (“Mother”)1 appeals from the juvenile court’s order adjudicating S.C.,
Kad.C., and Kai.C. (collectively, “the children”), to be children in need of
services (“CHINS”). Mother raises two issues for our review:
I. Whether the Indiana Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) failed to present sufficient evidence to support the
juvenile court’s CHINS adjudication; and
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering
Mother to complete a psychological assessment and a gun
safety course.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] J.C. (“Father”) and Mother have three children: S.C., born July 22, 2009,
Kad.C., born June 29, 2010, and Kai.C., born June 11, 2011. Tr. Vol. 2 at 185.
Father works as a gunner mate for the Navy and is currently stationed at Crane
Naval Base in Indiana. Id. at 52, 89. His job involves obtaining and
implementing new weapons, and he is qualified to run a shooting range. Id.
Mother is Filipino, and her side of the family lives in California. Id. at 163,
182.
1
Father is not participating in this appeal. However, because he is a party of record in the trial court, he is a
party on appeal. See Ind. Appellate Rule 17(A).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 2 of 19
[4] On March 10, 2019, Mother came home from work and found Father
intoxicated. Id. at 168. They began to argue while the children were playing
upstairs. Id. Mother left and went to the home of M.C., who is a friend of
Father’s and a coworker at the Navy. Id. at 57. At around 7:00 p.m., Mother
showed up at M.C.’s home crying and very upset. Id. Mother told him that
Father was drunk and asked him to come to her house to distract Father. Id.
Mother also told him that Father had been physically violent toward her on
several occasions in the past. Id. at 60. One of those occasions happened on a
family trip to North Carolina. Id. at 61. The children were sharing a hotel
room with the parents. Id. One night, Father returned from a bar already
drunk and angry. Id. He began to argue with Mother and eventually pulled out
a gun and a knife. Id. Father demanded Mother pick up the gun. Id. Mother
refused because she was worried that Father would kill her and have an excuse
of self-defense. Id. Father then traced the knife down her thigh to scare her into
picking up the weapon. Id. Their daughter started crying, and soon their sons
woke up and also started crying. Id. at 62. Mother told M.C. that Father got
angry with the boys and stuffed the gun in the stomach of one of the boys and
yelled at them to get them to be quiet. Id.
[5] Another incident that Mother told M.C. about also happened in North
Carolina. Id. at 65. Mother said that she had a man who was going to help her
get away from Father. Id. When Father came home and saw the man, he
pointed a gun at them and forcefully ejected both the man and Mother from the
house. Id. at 65, 137. A third incident that Mother described to M.C. took
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 3 of 19
place in Indiana. Id. at 64. One day, Father came home angry, and Mother
was in the kitchen with their daughter in her arms. Id. Mother said that she
thought about using the daughter as a shield so that Father would not harm her.
Id. Mother told M.C. that Father throat chopped her to the point that she was
gasping for air. Id. Father then pinned her against the floor to inflict pain on
her, and she suffered nerve damage in one of her hands from the attack. Id.
[6] Throughout their conversation, M.C. observed that Mother was “very
frightened” both for herself and for the children. Id. at 58. While Mother
insisted that she did not want to get Father in trouble, M.C. explained that he is
required to report these incidents to the Navy. Id. About two hours later, M.C.
drove Mother to the home of her friend L.M.L. and went to see Father by
himself. Id. at 65, 92.
[7] When M.C. arrived at the family home on the evening of March 10, 2019, he
knocked on the door and rang the doorbell for fifteen minutes, but no one
answered. Id. at 93. Eventually, the two sons opened the door and let him in.
Id. at 65. M.C. saw that Father was passed out in a rocking chair. Id. at 65.
There was a pistol on a shelf to the right of Father’s chair, which was within the
children’s reach. Id. at 67-73. M.C. later discovered that the pistol had a bullet
in the chamber. Id. at 104; DCS Exs. 4-11. At the fact-finding hearing, M.C.
further testified that Father had multiple pistols inside the home. Id. at 105.
When Father was awakened by M.C., he was “very confused” and “obviously
intoxicated.” Id. Father got very angry at the boys for letting M.C. into the
house. Id. M.C. observed that the boys appeared frightened. Id. at 65, 67.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 4 of 19
[8] Mother returned to the family home about an hour after M.C. arrived. Id. at
66. M.C. testified that Father began to argue with Mother and accused her of
cheating on him because she came home late. Id. at 73. Mother tried to
explain to Father that she was home earlier and only left because she did not
want their argument to escalate. Id. Father did not believe her and called the
children down to confirm her story. Id. at 73-74. After being questioned by
Father, two of the children went back upstairs to sleep, but one stayed
downstairs. Id. at 74. When Father was trying to point out a hole that he had
made in the wall and explain it to Mother, the son that had stayed pointed it
out before Father. Id. Father then “cupped” his son upside the head and called
him “a fucking bitch.” Id. M.C. saw that the son had tears in his eyes. Id.
Father also yelled at the son again before the boy went upstairs to bed. Id.
After the children had all gone upstairs, the argument between Father and
Mother worsened. Id. Father again accused Mother of cheating on him. Id. at
74-76. Father told M.C. that he had been accused of pistol-whipping Mother in
North Carolina. Id. at 76. Father then picked up the pistol that was on the
shelf, unloaded it, and showed the gun to Mother, saying that “this gun has no
blemish on it, no blood on it, it’s in pristine condition, [and it] hasn’t been
cleaned since North Carolina, so it couldn’t have been used to do anything in
North Carolina.” Id. Father then reloaded the gun and placed it back on the
television stand, which was its usual location. Id.
[9] As required by the Navy, M.C. reported the March 10 incident and the previous
incidents that Mother had told him about to Father’s command. Id. at 100-01.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 5 of 19
As a result, a thirty-day military protective order was placed on Father, which
required him to leave the family home and keep a 1000-feet distance away from
Mother and the children. Id. at 98. Father testified at the hearing that he had
complied with the military protective order and had no contact with Mother
and the children during the thirty-day period. Id. at 212. M.C. also tried to set
up a meeting for Mother to talk to the Naval Criminal Investigation Service
(“NCIS”). Id. at 87. However, Mother refused. Id. at 85, 87.
[10] In addition to M.C., Mother reached out to her friend L.M.L. about Father’s
violence against her in the past. Id. at 134-38. On March 7, 2019, Mother told
L.M.L. that she was not ready to leave Father because she didn’t have enough
resources. Id. at 139. She was also worried that Father would lose his job, and
the children would no longer have military benefits. Id.
[11] On the evening of March 10, when M.C. drove Mother to L.M.L.’s house,
L.M.L. saw that Mother was crying and shivering due to anxiety. Id. at 139-40.
Mother told L.M.L. about her fight with Father and that she was scared
because she couldn’t predict how Father’s violence would progress in the
future. Id. L.M.L. testified that she proposed that Mother bring the children
over to spend the night. Id. at 140. Mother declined because she was afraid
that Father would get angrier if he were to wake up in the morning, and they
were not home. Id.
[12] L.M.L. also testified that she spoke with Mother over the phone on March 12,
2019. Id. at 140. Mother was crying because she was anxious about the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 6 of 19
protective order on Father and worried that Father was going to lose his job.
Id. Her mother-in-law had been pressuring her to provide a character reference
to the Navy for Father to pass the security clearance. Id. at 140-41. While
Mother attempted to hold back, and L.M.L. had advised her not to provide the
letter if it was not the full truth, she eventually relented and wrote one. Id. at
141.
[13] On March 22, 2019, Mother, L.M.L., and another friend met at a local grocery
store. Id. Mother explained that she did not want to meet at home because
Father had surveillance cameras and microphones inside and could listen to
their conversation. Id. at 142. She also asked them to communicate with her
only through Facebook messenger because Father would track her activities on
her phone. Id. L.M.L. testified that at the grocery store, Mother stated that she
was ready to file for a divorce for her own safety and the safety of the children.
Id. at 142. During the time of the protection order, L.M.L. and her friend
helped Mother with transportation and groceries because Mother had no access
to the family’s bank account, which was controlled by Father. Id. When
L.M.L. told Mother that she had reported Mother’s stories to the Indiana
Department of Child Services (“DCS”), Mother got upset because she didn’t
want the DCS to intervene. Id. at 140, 143. L.M.L. testified that Mother
started to make excuses for Father and stated that on March 10, he pulled her
hair only because he was drunk. Id. at 143. Mother eventually stopped her
communication with L.M.L. by end of May in 2019. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 7 of 19
[14] On March 15, 2019, which was within the duration of Father’s military
protective order, DCS received a report against Father for child neglect. Id. at
148. After DCS became involved, Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Stephanie
Clephane (“FCM Clephane”) made an unannounced visit on March 17, 2019.
Id. Mother let her in and was willing to discuss the neglect allegation. Id. at
148-49. Mother cried when she was telling FCM Clephane about the protective
order because she wanted Father to come home. Id. at 149. During FCM
Clephane’s initial assessment, Mother admitted that Father had a drinking
problem, but she denied that Father ever hit her. Id. FCM Clephane testified
that Mother appeared to be very careful with words. Id. Mother kept stating
that everything was blown out of proportion, and that “this was not a big deal.”
Id. FCM Clephane also asked Mother about having a knife and guns in the
house. Id. at 151. Mother said that she did not want to discuss them because
“those things happened a long time ago.” Id. Mother further stated that she
“liked having the gun in the home” because she “felt protected by it.” Id. FCM
Clephane tried to bring up the knife issue again, but Mother dismissed it and
said that they were past that now. Id.
[15] FCM Clephane then asked to speak with the children in private. Id. Mother
allowed it, but when FCM Clephane was talking to each child, Mother stood
behind FCM Clephane to make her presence known. Id. at 152. FCM
Clephane testified that the children seemed extremely guarded and would
whisper things under their breath. Id. at 153. FCM Clephane believed that they
did not feel like they could share their concerns. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 8 of 19
[16] After the initial assessment by FCM Clephane, the case was assigned to FCM
Brittany Lawrence (“FCM Lawrence”). Id. at 156. FCM Lawrence testified
that when they first talked over the phone, Mother was emotional and was
“crying off and on,” saying that she was “still processing things” and did not
know what to do. Id. at 157. Regarding the children, Mother told FCM
Lawrence that their youngest child Kai.C. was having trouble sleeping at night,
and the middle child Kad.C. was having behavioral problems at school. Id. On
May 20, 2019, FCM Lawrence made an unannounced visit to the family home.
Id. Mother told FCM Lawrence that she did not know what to do. Id. at 165-
66. She stated that she did not like Father to drink so much and how he
behaved when he was drunk. Id. Mother also told FCM Lawrence about
Father having affairs and accusing Mother of not loving him. Id. At one point,
Mother asked FCM Lawrence whether she herself was the reason that Father
was behaving in such ways, and whether she was a good enough wife. Id. At
the fact-finding hearing, FCM Lawrence described Mother as “very vulnerable
and kind of shrunken in.” Id. When Mother got emotional during the
conversation, her body language became very frightened and scared as if she
could not control it. Id. FCM Lawrence testified that Mother’s reactions were
typical of a victim of domestic violence. Id.
[17] Mother had expressed her interest to both FCM Clephane and FCM Lawrence
in receiving counseling for herself and the children. Id. at 151, 158. FCM
Lawrence testified that DCS had made those referrals for her to Centerstone,
including a substance abuse evaluation for Father, individual therapy for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 9 of 19
Mother, and an evaluation for the children. Id. at 179. The DSC also
attempted to inform the parents about what those services entailed and asked
what kind of services the parents would want. Id. However, until the fact-
finding hearing on July 8, 2019, the parents had not completed the evaluations
or contacted DSC to inquire about those services or about their case. Id. On
November 4, 2019, the day of the dispositional hearing, Mother eventually
completed her counseling assessment. Tr. Vol. 3 at 40
[18] On May 22, 2019, the case was assigned to its current case manager, FCM Jake
Parker (“FCM Parker”). Id. at 198. On June 19, FCM Parker made an
unannounced visit to see the children. Id. Mother asked FCM Parker to wait
while she asked for permission from Father and Father’s lawyer. Id. at 199-200.
When Father could not reach his lawyer, Mother asked FCM Parker to leave.
Id. at 200. However, she called FCM Parker shortly after and told him that he
could see the children. Id. FCM Parker returned, but he was only allowed to
watch the children play from the entryway at the door. Id. Mother videotaped
FCM Parker’s visit and did not allow him to converse with the children. Id.
When the Court Appointed Special Advocate Julie Gerstorff (“CASA
Gerstorff”) visited the children with her supervisor on July 30, 2019, Mother
allowed the interview, but the eldest child, S.C., at first, hid in the bathroom
and did not want to come out. Id. at 207-08.
[19] On June 11, 2019, DCS filed a verified petition alleging the children to be
CHINS. Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 23. DCS alleged that Father was
domestically violent in front of the children, that Father has a substance abuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 10 of 19
problem, that Father has pending criminal charges against him for the incident
on March 10, 2019, that the children appeared to have been coached not to talk
about the family, and that the family refused an informal adjustment. Id. at 24.
[20] On August 7, 2019, the juvenile court heard evidence on DCS’s petition and
found the children to be CHINS. Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 32-37; Tr. Vol. 2 at
49. The juvenile court ordered both parents to ensure that all firearms were
locked in a safe place at all times. Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 39. Among other
things, the juvenile court also ordered Mother to complete a psychological
assessment and a gun safety course. Id. at 40. Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[21] Mother alleges that the DCS failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that
the children are CHINS. Where the trial court issues findings of fact and
conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re R.P., 949
N.E.2d 395, 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). We consider first whether the evidence
supports the findings and then whether the findings support the judgment. Id.We will set aside the trial court’s findings and conclusions only if they are
clearly erroneous and a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a
mistake has been made. Id. We neither reweigh evidence nor reassess witness
credibility when we review the trial court’s findings. Id. Instead, we must
accept the ultimate facts as stated by the trial court if there is evidence to sustain
them. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 11 of 19
evidence to support them either directly or by inference.” K.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of
Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997, 1001-02 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted). “A
judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard.” Id. at
1002.
[22] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action, and it must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by statute. In
re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37, 39 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d
102, 105 (Ind. 2010)), trans. denied. Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 through 11
specify the elements of the CHINS definition that the State must prove:
(1) the child is under the age of 18;
(2) one or more particular set or sets of circumstances set forth in
the statute exists; and
(3) the care, treatment, or rehabilitation needed to address those
circumstances is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court.
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). In the current case, the trial court
adjudicated the children to be CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-
1-1, which provides:
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 12 of 19
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.
[23] The Indiana Supreme Court has established that this statute requires “three
basic elements: that the parent’s actions or inactions have seriously endangered
the child, that the child’s needs are unmet, and . . . that those needs are unlikely
to be met without State coercion.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d, 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014).
“A CHINS finding cannot be entered if the ‘coercive intervention’ element is
unproven.” In re E.K., 83 N.E.3d 1256, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans denied.
[24] On appeal, Mother argues that the DCS failed to prove the “coercive
intervention” element by sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s
CHINS adjudication. Appellant’s Br. at 12-17. Specifically, Mother contends
that the juvenile court’s intervention is not necessary to ensure that she would
provide a safe home and mental care for the children because (1) she had
already cooperated with DCS services and Father would cooperate with
whatever the Navy ordered him to do in the future; (2) she and Father had not
reported any incidents of violence due to alcohol use since March 10, 2019; and
(3) she and Father had been following DCS’s safety plan which requires them
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 13 of 19
to separate themselves before any argument escalates and to not expose the
children to any form of violence. Id. Mother’s argument is a request for us to
reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. In re R.P., 949 N.E.2d at 400.
[25] Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children without undue
influence from the State. G.B. v. Dearborn, 754 N.E.2d 1027, 1032 (Ind. Ct. App
2001), trans. denied. However, that right is limited by the State’s compelling
interest in protecting the welfare of the children. Id. Therefore, the focus of the
CHINS proceeding is on the condition of the children and whether they have
needs that the parents are unable or unwilling to meet, creating a need for court
intervention. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). CHINS statutes do
not require that a court wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. Roark v. Roark,
551 N.E.2d 865, 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). Once the juvenile court concludes
that a parent’s actions or omissions have created a CHINS condition, the court
may infer that such actions and conditions would continue in the absence of
court intervention. In re M.R., 452 N.E.2d 1085, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
[26] The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing revealed that Father has a
history of domestic violence. Mother repeatedly failed to protect the children in
dangerous situations and left them with Father when he was intoxicated and in
possession of firearms. When the parents had a fight during their vacation in
North Carolina, Father pointed a gun at one child while Mother was present.
Tr. Vol. 2 at 62. On another occasion, Father got upset seeing Mother with a
man at their home, Mother was escorted out at gunpoint, and the children were
left alone with Father. Id. at 137. On March 10, 2019, after having a fight with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 14 of 19
Father at their home, Mother left the house because she was worried about her
own safety and the safety of the children. Id. at 139. However, the children
were left at home with Father, who was extremely intoxicated and later passed
out in a rocking chair with a loaded gun on the shelf nearby within the
children’s reach. Id.
[27] Evidence was also presented that supported the trial court’s finding that Mother
failed to participate in the services provided by DCS or to cooperate with the
NCIS investigation. Appellant’s App. Vol II at 36. While Mother stated that she
felt that the children could benefit from counseling, she never took the children
to complete the evaluation that was referred by DCS. Id. at 151, 158, 180.
Mother herself also failed to participate promptly in her own evaluations. Id. at
178-80. From March 2019 to November 2019, Mother did not voluntarily set
up any appointment or inquire about the counseling services. Id. She waited
six months until the day of the dispositional hearing to finally complete her first
evaluation. Tr. Vol. 3 at 40.
[28] Further evidence was presented that Mother did not cooperate with the NCIS
and DCS investigations voluntarily. She refused to speak with an NCIS
investigator about Father. Tr. Vol. 2 at 87. Mother was upset when she learned
that L.M.L. had reported Father’s violent behavior at home to the DCS. Id. at
143. Mother started to find excuses for Father’s violence at home and soon
stopped communicating with L.M.L.. Id. Mother also prevented the children
from talking freely to the FCMs. During FCM Clephane’s initial assessment,
Mother stood behind FCM Clephane so that the children could see her when
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 15 of 19
they were talking to FCM Clephane. Id. at 152-53. FCM Clephane testified
that she believed Mother’s presence made the children unable to speak freely.
Id. When FCM Parker made an unannounced visit to talk to the children,
Mother refused and asked FCM Parker to wait before getting permission from
Father and Father’s lawyer. Id. at 199-200. Although within an hour Mother
called back and allowed FCM Parker to see and talk to the children very briefly,
she did not allow FCM Parker to have a conversation with them. Id. at 200.
Mother also videotaped FCM Parker’s visit. Id.
[29] Despite Father’s violent behavior at home, Mother continued to support him
and was unwilling to get help. Mother wanted the military protective order
against Father to be lifted so that Father could come home. Id. at 149. She
referred to the March 10 incident as “not a big deal” to FCM Clephane. Id.
During the no contact order, Mother wrote a character reference for Father so
that he could pass security clearance for his job with the Navy. Id. at 140-41.
Mother believed that she was the reason that Father was acting violent at home.
Id. at 166. She was reluctant to leave Father because she did not have enough
resources and wanted the children to continue to have military benefits. Id. at
139.
[30] Collenn Yeakle (“Yeakle”) is a specialist in domestic violence who testified at
the fact-finding hearing that domestic violence harms children even when they
do not see the physical violence itself. Id. at 108, 123. Children can sense it is
going on and recognize the conditions of control that the perpetrator exercises
over the victim. Id. Yeakle explained that domestic violence often leads to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 16 of 19
childhood depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. The
evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that Mother was
either unable or unwilling to appreciate the trauma to her children caused by
the violence present in the home. We, therefore, conclude that court
intervention was necessary to protect the physical and mental health of the
children.
[31] Because Mother does not challenge the other two elements of a CHINS finding
that the parents’ actions or inactions have seriously endangered the children
and that the children’s needs for care, treatment, or rehabilitation are unmet,
we conclude that the juvenile court properly determined the children to be
CHINS.
II. Abuse of Discretion
[32] Mother alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in its dispositional order
by requiring her to engage in a psychological evaluation and to take a gun
safety course. Appellant’s Br. at 19-20. The services ordered at disposition
should be directed toward preserving and reunifying families without unduly
interfering with the parent-child relationship. In re E.M. 4 N.E.3d 636, 647
(Ind. 2014). The juvenile court has broad discretion in determining which
programs and services a parent should complete, so long as “the requirements
are related to some behavior or circumstances that was revealed by the
evidence.” In re K.D. 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1258 (Ind. 2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 17 of 19
[33] Here, the trial court ordered Mother to take a psychological assessment because
Mother was a victim of domestic abuse and had repeatedly recounted incidents
from which she failed to protect herself and the children. Tr. Vol. 3 at 41-42.
The court believed that Mother still has not recognized that her “duty and
responsibility” is to protect herself and the children. Id. at 42. The same
evidence about Mother leaving the children alone with Father when he was
heavily intoxicated with loaded firearms also supported the juvenile court’s
determination. Tr. Vol 2 at 57-61. In addition, Mother struggles to appreciate
the damage that an environment of domestic violence can inflict on the
children. Mother interfered with DCS case managers’ efforts to help the
children by preventing them from interviewing the children and influencing the
information that the children disclosed at those interviews by being present. Id.
at 152, 199-200. Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse
its discretion by requiring Mother to participate in a psychological assessment
related to addressing Mother’s lack of ability and awareness in protecting
herself and the children from Father’s violent behaviors.
[34] Mother also challenges the juvenile court’s order requiring her to take a gun
safety course. Appellant’s Br. at 19-20. Mother contends that DCS had already
executed a safety plan with the family on April 17, 2019, which required: 1)
the parents must lock away all weapons if they were to argue; 2) when the
weapons are not locked away, the safety must be on; and 3) one sober parent
must be present to care for the children. Tr. Vol. 2 at 190. However, the
evidence showed that Mother never seemed to understand the risk involved in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 18 of 19
having unsecured weapons in the home with the children. Id. at 67-73, 151.
The dispositional order requiring Mother to take a gun safety class would help
her understand how the guns should be stored and how to treat firearms, which
are paramount in making sure Mother is able to protect the children with guns
in the house.
[35] We, therefore, conclude that DCS presented sufficient evidence to support that
the children are CHINS, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
ordering Mother to complete a psychological assessment and a gun safety
course.
[36] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JC-2926| August 6, 2020 Page 19 of 19