CHINS: B T v. Indiana Department of Child Services ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  FILED
    Aug 23 2023, 9:47 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT B.T.                                ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Riley L. Parr                                              Theodore E. Rokita
    Lebanon, Indiana                                           Attorney General of Indiana
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT N.T.                                Abigail R. Recker
    Deputy Attorney General
    Michael C. Price                                           Indianapolis, Indiana
    Zionsville, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In the Matter of: A.T., Child in                           August 23, 2023
    Need of Services:                                          Court of Appeals Case No.
    22A-JC-3051
    B.T. (Mother) and N.T. (Father),                           Appeal from the Boone Circuit
    Appellants-Respondents,                                    Court
    The Honorable Lori N. Schein,
    v.                                                 Judge
    The Honorable Sally E. Berish,
    The Indiana Department of                                  Magistrate
    Child Services,                                            Trial Court Cause No.
    06C01-2110-JC-316
    Appellee-Petitioner.
    Opinion by Judge Bradford
    Judges Riley and Weissmann concur.
    Bradford, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023                           Page 1 of 33
    Case Summary
    [1]   B.T. (“Mother”) and N.T. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) are the adoptive
    parents of A.T. Since being adopted by Parents in 2015, A.T. has engaged in
    problematic and sometimes violent behaviors. Parents have worked with
    various service providers over the years to provide A.T. with effective treatment
    and care. At some point, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”)
    became involved with the family, providing them with wrap-around services as
    needed. On October 4, 2021, Parents and A.T. appeared at DCS, with Parents
    claiming that A.T.’s condition had worsened and that she required residential
    placement for treatment. A.T. also indicated that she did not feel safe in
    Parents’ home at that time. Two days later, on October 6, 2021, DCS filed a
    petition alleging that A.T. was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). The
    juvenile court subsequently found A.T. to be a CHINS. Parents appeal part of
    the juvenile court’s CHINS determination. Concluding that the juvenile court
    correctly adjudicated A.T. to be a CHINS but that the portion of the juvenile
    court’s order relating to Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2 is not supported
    by the evidence, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   Parents are the adoptive parents of A.T., who was born on June 5, 2006. Prior
    to her adoption by Parents, A.T. “had been a victim of physical abuse and
    neglect by her biological parent, including witnessing sexually abusive
    behaviors by her” biological mother. Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 8.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 2 of 33
    Parents met A.T. when she was placed at Coyote Hill Christian Children’s
    Home as a ward of the State of Missouri. While placed at Coyote Hill, A.T.
    had “struggled with behavioral issues including sexually acting out on others,
    excessive self-masturbation, property destruction, bullying children at school,
    extreme attention-seeking, and excessive lying including false allegations of
    prior sexual abuse by biological father with brother’s knowledge of it
    happening.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 8. She had been diagnosed with
    post-traumatic stress disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit
    hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, and reactive attachment disorder and
    had been prescribed various medications.
    [3]   Despite being aware of A.T.’s mental-health and behavioral issues, Parents
    adopted A.T. and her brother in 2015. A.T. has, at times, demonstrated
    problematic and violent behavior since her adoption by Parents and has, at
    times, received both inpatient and out-patient treatment for her mental-health
    diagnoses. In 2016, after consultation with A.T.’s then-support team, Parents
    took A.T. off of her prescribed medications, and A.T. experienced a period of
    stability. However, by 2019, A.T.’s condition had deteriorated such that her
    then-support team had recommended that she again be medicated.
    Additionally, at some point, A.T. “began to report seeing an entity named
    Samuel with her at times,” producing “letters she claimed were from Samuel,
    drafted in her own handwriting.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 11.
    [4]   A.T. “was admitted to two acute emergency psychiatric stays during” August of
    2020. Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 12. Beginning in September of 2020,
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 3 of 33
    A.T. received residential treatment from Resource for “nine and a half (9½)
    months.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 12. While at Resource, A.T.
    displayed “dangerous self-harming behaviors, aggression toward peers, [and
    would] inappropriately manipulate situations and cross boundaries to get her
    way. She sexually acted out with peers, displayed suicidal ideation, threatened
    to kill her therapist and attempted to physically harm [her] therapist.”
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 12. A.T. was discharged from Resource on
    July 19, 2021, without successfully completing her programming “due to
    Medicaid terminating funding for the private placement.” Appellant B.T.’s
    App. Vol. II p. 13. Following A.T.’s discharge from Resource, the family was
    referred to DCS for community wrap-around services. In the months that
    followed, A.T. continued to engage in problematic, sometimes violent behavior.
    [5]   On October 4, 2021, following another incident involving A.T., Parents brought
    her to their local DCS office. Parents reported that A.T. had threatened to kill
    her adult sibling and had threatened to harm them. Parents indicated that they
    wanted A.T. “to go to a facility” and A.T. indicated that she did “not feel safe
    in [Parents’] home.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 57. As of October 4,
    2021, A.T. had been diagnosed with “Reactive Attachment Disorder,
    Dysregulated Mood Disorder, ODD, ADHD, and Anxiety. [A.T. was] on
    medications and participating in wrap around services through DCS.”
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 57.
    [6]   While at the DCS office, Parents met with DCS representatives who were a part
    of A.T.’s family-care team, with whom they eventually agreed to a safety plan
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023        Page 4 of 33
    that would have A.T. transported to a hospital for a risk assessment, with
    Parents following behind in a separate vehicle. However, after the members of
    A.T.’s family-care team left the DCS offices, a DCS supervisor, who was not a
    part of A.T.’s family-care team, “overrode the agreed on safety plan and instead
    had the [family-case managers] advise Parents they had to agree to take Child
    home with them or DCS would charge them with abandonment.” Appellant
    B.T.’s App. Vol. II pp. 16–17 (emphasis in original, internal quotation omitted).
    [7]   DCS removed A.T. from Parents’ home and, two days later, on October 6,
    2021, filed a petition alleging that A.T. is a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code
    section 31-34-1-1. A.T. was initially placed in two different foster homes,
    before being placed in “residential placement at Oaklawn Psychiatric Center.”
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 17. A.T.’s placement in each of the foster
    homes failed due to A.T.’s “verbal and physical aggression and violent physical
    behavior” as, in both homes, A.T. “threatened physical harm or to kill foster
    placement’s family members and laid hands on foster placement or foster
    placement’s family members in anger.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 17.
    A.T. also engaged in
    multiple incidents of self-harming behavior, including attempted
    cutting, punching objects causing serious injury to her hand,
    refusing to take medication, attempting to drink chemicals,
    placing pop-tops and other objects in her mouth, taking an entire
    bottle of medication at one time (then spitting it out – but
    without the ability for placement to do a proper pill count to
    know if [A.T.] did in fact swallow any pills).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023     Page 5 of 33
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 17. A.T.’s concerning behaviors, including
    physical aggression toward others, self-harm, and suicidal ideation have
    continued since her placement at Oaklawn. Since A.T.’s placement at
    Oaklawn, A.T. has engaged in family counseling, as have Parents, with the
    therapeutic recommendation since A.T.’s admission being that there be no in-
    person visitation between Parents and A.T. but with cards passed through the
    therapist.
    [8]   As the case proceeded, Parents separately requested permission to offer
    evidence establishing that A.T. was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section
    31-34-1-6. The matter eventually proceeded to a five-day evidentiary hearing,
    beginning on March 3, 2022, and continuing on June 1 and 2, 2022; July 27,
    2022; and August 17, 2022. On July 26, 2022, after the first three days of the
    evidentiary hearing had been completed and after DCS had completed its case-
    in-chief, DCS requested permission to amend its initial CHINS petition to
    include an allegation that A.T. was also a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code
    section 31-34-1-2. Parents objected to DCS’s request to amend the CHINS
    petition, arguing that the amended petition was untimely and that “permitting
    an amendment at this stage undermines all concept of notice and due process
    rights.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 143. The juvenile court granted
    DCS’s request over Parents’ objection and the proceedings continued.
    [9]   On October 31, 2022, the juvenile court issued an order in which it found A.T.
    to be a CHINS, concluding that the evidence demonstrated that A.T. is a
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 6 of 33
    CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1, -2, and -6. With regard to
    Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, the juvenile court concluded as follows:
    DCS has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [A.T.]
    is a [CHINS] as defined by [Indiana Code section] 31-34-1-1 in
    that her physical and mental condition is seriously impaired and
    seriously endangered as a result of the inability and refusal of the
    Parents to supply her with the necessary shelter, supervision, and
    medical care.
    Parents appeared at DCS on October 4, 2021[,] with no other
    intention than leaving without Child in their care and custody.
    They claimed to be afraid of her violence; but routinely disregard
    her behaviors as attention seeking only. They refused to [agree to
    as part of a] reasonabl[e] safety plan for her return home. They
    refused to provide alternative placement options for her, claiming
    she had burned all her bridges. Parents were intent on Child
    being placed only in residential treatment that day and Mother
    unequivocally stated on the last day of trial that Parents stance
    on Child’s continued placement only in long term residential
    treatment and not in their home has not changed.
    Further, Parents have established a pattern of ignoring
    professional medical Orders for Child’s care by removing Child
    from prescribed medications and ignoring counseling treatment
    plans. Parents made repeated decisions against medical advice
    for Child. Parents have refused to acknowledge Child’s
    increasingly dangerous behaviors and instead believe her
    behaviors are attention seeking and nothing more.
    The coercive intervention of the Court is necessary because on
    October 4, 2021[,] Parents refused to provide Child with the
    necessary shelter and supervision which seriously impaired and
    endangered her well-being and their stance on taking her back
    into their home has not changed. In addition, they have
    established a pattern of refusing to provide her with the necessary
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023        Page 7 of 33
    medical care and treatment prescribed by multiple physicians and
    mental health professionals, which has seriously impaired and
    endangered her well-being.
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II pp. 19–20 (underlining in original). With regard
    to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2, the juvenile court concluded as follows:
    DCS has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [A.T.]
    is a [CHINS] as defined by [Indiana Code section] 31-34-1-2 in
    that during 2016–2018[,] Parents willfully chose to ignore or
    disregard multiple medical Orders of Child’s physicians and
    mental health professionals regarding her medications and
    mental health treatment plans.
    In addition, during those years and years after, Parents chose to
    disregard the recommendations of educational specialists
    regarding Child’s Educational Disability in her best interest,
    which recommended home schooling or online school. Parents
    unilaterality acted in their own best interest and enrolled her in
    public school.
    During this period, Child reported seeing a hallucination or
    celestial being, Samuel. Child reports Samuel guides her actions
    and affects her moods. Parents disregarded this as simply further
    attention seeking behavior, thus seriously endangering Child’s
    mental health.
    Also, during this period, Child’s behaviors in the home and at
    school increased in intensity, violence and frequency and grew to
    include suicidal ideation. Parents again disregarded these
    behaviors as attention seeking and seriously endangered Child’s
    mental health.
    The coercive intervention of the Court is necessary because
    Parents[’] acts or omissions in withholding Child’s medication
    and therapy more likely than not lead to the increase in
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023          Page 8 of 33
    frequency and intensity of Child’s negative and dangerous
    behaviors. Parents established a pattern of acting in their own
    best interest in making these decisions, not in Child’s best
    interest. Mother in fact testified to the very same. Without the
    coercive intervention of the Court on behalf of Child, Parents are
    certain to revert to the same decision[-]making process.
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 21. With regard to Indiana Code section 31-
    34-1-6, the juvenile court concluded as follows:
    [Parents have1] proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
    [A.T.] is a [CHINS] as defined by [Indiana Code section] 31-34-
    1-6 in that Child has exhibited self-harming behavior both in the
    home and at school and those behaviors have steadily increased
    in intensity and danger.
    Child has substantially endangered her own health (taking an
    entire bottle of pills) or the health of another (threatening to take
    weapons to school, threatening to kill a teacher or children in
    their sleep, threatening to kill Mother and brother). These
    behaviors have happened in the home, in and out of multiple
    relative foster and residential placements and continue to do so
    while in the current DCS residential placement. She sees a
    hallucinated being. She is violent toward others. She threatens
    to harm and kill others. She has physically harmed others.
    The coercive intervention of the Court is necessary because
    Parents have failed to take Child’s behaviors seriously and failed
    to protect the Child, themselves and others from Child. The
    coercive intervention of the Court is necessary because Child is
    1
    The juvenile court’s original order indicated that DCS had proven that A.T. was a CHINS pursuant to
    Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6, but the court subsequently issued a nunc pro tunc order, correcting its
    conclusion to state that Parents had proven that A.T. was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-
    1-6.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023                           Page 9 of 33
    unable to protect herself.
    DCS has misinterpreted the statute in their argument against a
    Finding under IC 31-34-1-6. The statute does not require Child
    to present a danger only to Parents, and the argument that she is
    not a danger because of her current placement is not well
    founded. First, the statute requires endangerment of “another
    individual”, not endangerment to the parent. Child is clearly
    continuing to present a danger to other individuals while she [is]
    in residential placement. Secondly, perhaps that danger is indeed
    mitigated because of her placement and intensive level of
    supervision; however, that does not mean she is not a substantial
    danger. It simply means due to Court intervention an
    appropriate placement has been found to address her needs.
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II pp. 22–23 (emphases in original). Given these
    conclusions, the juvenile court ordered that A.T. “shall remain in her current
    home or placement, with supervision by DCS” and that the family should
    continue to engage in family therapy. Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 26.
    Discussion and Decision
    [10]   At the outset, we note that in adjudicating A.T. to be a CHINS, the juvenile
    court concluded that A.T. was a CHINS under multiple sections of the Indiana
    Code, including Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6. Indiana Code section 31-34-1-
    6 provides that in order to adjudicate a child to be a CHINS under that section,
    it must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
    A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes
    eighteen (18) years of age:
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023          Page 10 of 33
    (1) the child substantially endangers the child’s own
    health or the health of another individual; 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.
    Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s conclusion that A.T. is a CHINS
    pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6 on appeal. As such, regardless of
    the success of Parents’ arguments on appeal, the portion of the juvenile court’s
    order adjudicating A.T. to be a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6
    will remain intact.
    [11]   However, Parents’ challenges to the juvenile court’s order are not moot given
    the harmful collateral consequences that may be suffered by a parent following
    a CHINS determination. For instance, a CHINS determination, especially one
    indicating that a parent had neglected or abandoned a child, could result in
    adverse job consequences or preclude a parent from serving as a foster parent in
    the future. See In re S.D., 
    2 N.E.3d 1283
    , 1290 (Ind. 2014) (providing that a
    CHINS determination could result in adverse job consequences or preclude a
    parent from serving as a foster parent). As such we will address Parents’
    appellate challenges to the juvenile court’s order.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 11 of 33
    I.      Parents’ Challenges to the Juvenile Court’s Order
    [12]   Parents contend that the juvenile court erred in allowing DCS to amend the
    CHINS petition to include Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2 after three days of
    the evidentiary hearing had been completed. They also contend that the
    evidence is insufficient to sustain the juvenile court’s determination that A.T. is
    a CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2.
    A. Amendment to CHINS Petition
    [13]   Indiana Trial Rule 15(B), which we have previously noted applies to CHINS
    proceedings, see Maybaum v. Putnam Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 
    723 N.E.2d 951
    ,
    954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), provides as follows:
    When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or
    implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects
    as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of
    the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to
    the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion
    of any party at any time, even after judgment, but failure so to
    amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If
    evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not
    within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
    pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the
    presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby
    and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the
    admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining
    his action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a
    continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.
    Ind. R. Trial P. 15. In Maybaum, we noted that while a CHINS petition “is an
    integral part of ensuring that the parents have notice of the allegations and an
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023        Page 12 of 33
    opportunity to contradict [DCS’s] evidence,” the purpose of Trial Rule 15(B)
    “is to promote relief for a party based upon the evidence actually introduced at
    trial, notwithstanding the allegations set forth in the pleadings.” 
    723 N.E.2d at 954
    . Furthermore, “[n]otice may be express if raised prior to or during trial, or
    implied, if the evidence presented at trial places a reasonably competent
    attorney on notice that the issue was before the court.” 
    Id.
     We generally
    review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an amendment to pleadings for
    an abuse of discretion. See Miller v. Patel, 
    174 N.E.3d 1061
    , 1064 (Ind. 2021).
    [14]   In this case, following the third day of the evidentiary hearing and after DCS
    had rested its case-in-chief, DCS requested permission to amend the CHINS
    petition to include Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2, which states that a child
    may be found to be a CHINS if the “child’s physical or mental health is
    seriously endangered due to injury by the act or omission of the child’s parent.”
    DCS argues that the evidence that had been presented during its case-in-chief
    supported a CHINS determination under this statutory section and that the
    requested amendment would simply allow the pleadings to conform to the
    evidence. The juvenile court granted DCS’s request to amend the CHINS
    petition over Parents’ objections.
    [15]   On appeal, DCS argues that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in
    allowing it to amend the CHINS petition, pointing specifically to the fact that
    the juvenile court offered to grant Parents a continuance so to present them
    with an opportunity to refute the allegation during their cases-in-chief. We
    have previously concluded that “[i]f the trial court allows introduction of an
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023     Page 13 of 33
    issue not raised before trial, an objecting party may seek a reasonable
    continuance in order to prepare to litigate the new issue.” In re V.C., 
    867 N.E.2d 167
    , 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
    [16]   In this case, DCS’s motion was filed ten minutes before the close of business on
    the day before the fourth day of the evidentiary hearing. The juvenile court
    indicated that it would grant Parents a continuance to prepare a defense to the
    amendment if Parents so wished but counsel for Parents declined, with each
    indicating that they would proceed with the fourth day of the hearing as
    scheduled and with Father’s counsel indicating that they would “take
    advantage of the Court’s opportunity here to come back on another day for
    those types of issues.” Tr. Vol. IV pp. 37–38. Notably, the fifth day of the
    evidentiary hearing did not occur until three weeks later, which gave Parents
    and their counsel the opportunity to craft a defense and attempt to refute the
    previously-admitted evidence relating to a CHINS finding under Indiana Code
    section 31-34-1-2. We cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
    allowing DCS to amend the CHINS petition, especially given the fact that
    Parents and their counsel had the opportunity during the three weeks between
    hearing dates to craft responses to DCS’s added allegation.
    B.      Sufficiency of the Evidence
    [17]   The Indiana Supreme Court has noted that when deciding whether a child is a
    CHINS,
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 14 of 33
    [j]uvenile court judges are often faced with the challenge of
    balancing multiple factors and multiple voices…. Judges must
    uphold the due process rights of parents, apply the proper law,
    and take into account recommendations and input from the court
    appointed special advocate (CASA), DCS, parents, step-parents,
    guardians, grandparents, the child, and often several attorneys.
    By their very nature, these cases do not fit neatly defined
    guidelines.
    In re K.D., 
    962 N.E.2d 1249
    , 1255 (Ind. 2012). “A CHINS finding should
    consider the family’s condition not just when the case was filed, but also when
    it is heard.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1290. Furthermore, the Indiana Supreme
    Court has held that when the court’s coercive intervention is not necessary, “the
    State may not intrude into a family’s life.” Id.
    [18]           When reviewing a trial court’s CHINS determination, we do not
    reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. Instead, we
    consider only the evidence that supports the trial court’s decision
    and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. When a trial
    court supplements a CHINS judgment with findings of fact and
    conclusions law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. We
    consider, first, whether the evidence supports the findings and,
    second, whether the findings support the judgment. We will
    reverse a CHINS determination only if it was clearly erroneous.
    A decision is clearly erroneous if the record facts do not support
    the findings or if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly
    found facts.
    In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 
    68 N.E.3d 574
    , 577–78 (Ind. 2017) (cleaned
    up).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 15 of 33
    [19]   Parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s
    conclusion that A.T. was a CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and
    -2. Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1 provides that in order to adjudicate a child
    to be a CHINS under that section, DCS must prove by a preponderance of the
    evidence that
    (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:
    (A) when the parent, guardian, or custodian is
    financially able to do so; or
    (B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the
    parent, guardian, or custodian to seek financial or
    other reasonable means to do so; 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.
    (Emphasis added). Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2(a) provides that in order to
    adjudicate a child to be a CHINS under that section, DCS must prove by a
    preponderance of the evidence that
    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 health is seriously
    endangered due to injury by the act or omission of the
    child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
    (2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation
    that:
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023          Page 16 of 33
    (A) the child is not receiving; and
    (B) is unlikely to be provided or
    accepted without the coercive
    intervention of the court.
    (Emphasis added).
    [20]   In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s
    order, Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that A.T. was a
    CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2 because there was no
    evidence demonstrating a connection between Parents’ actions and A.T.’s
    diagnoses and behaviors. For his part, Father argues that the evidence is
    insufficient to support a CHINS determination under any theory other than
    Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6 because abandonment never occurred and the
    challenged reasons for the CHINS adjudication are based on forbidden
    speculation. We will address Parents’ arguments separately.
    1.      Mother’s Arguments
    [21]   Mother argues that numerous factual findings made by the juvenile court are
    not supported by the evidence. Specifically, she challenges the sufficiency of
    the evidence to support Finding Numbers (“Finding No.”) twenty-one, thirty-
    three, thirty-five, thirty-seven, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, seventy-
    two, seventy-seven, and seventy-eight.
    a.      Finding No. Twenty-One
    [22]   Finding No. twenty-one reads: “In February 2016, Mother and Father took
    Child off all medications because Child, who was nine (9) years old, didn’t
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023           Page 17 of 33
    want to take them.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 9. On cross-examination,
    Mother was asked “[w]hose decision was it to stop [A.T.’s] medications in
    February of Twenty-Sixteen?” Tr. Vol. V p. 40. Mother’s response reads as
    follows:
    It was a team decision. [A.T.] had voiced she didn’t want to be
    on meds because she felt it stigmatized her and so we met with
    her worker, the state worker, I don’t remember her name, but it
    was a[n] adoptive worker from the State of Miss, Missouri as
    well as her psychiatrist I mean we had team meetings every
    week, so teams were involved in all of our decisions throughout
    this time.
    Tr. Vol. V pp. 40–41. Mother further stated that A.T. was nine years old at the
    time her team decided to stop her medication.
    [23]   While Finding No. twenty-one is accurate in as far as A.T. had voiced to
    Parents that she had not wanted take medication because she felt “it
    stigmatized” her, the finding is inaccurate in so far as it suggests that Parents
    unilaterally stopped A.T.’s medication because of A.T.’s wishes. Tr. Vol. V. p.
    40. The distinction is important given that the juvenile court appears to have
    relied on Finding No. twenty-one in concluding that “Parents established a
    pattern of ignoring professional medical [o]rders for [A.T.’s] care by removing
    [A.T.] from prescribed medications,” Parents “have established a established a
    pattern of refusing to provide her with the necessary medical care and treatment
    prescribed by multiple physicians and mental health professionals,” “Parents
    willfully chose to ignore or disregard multiple medical [o]rders of [A.T.’s]
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 18 of 33
    physicians and mental health professionals regarding her medications,” and
    “coercive intervention of the Court is necessary because Parents[’] acts or
    omissions in withholding [A.T.’s] medication and therapy more likely than not
    lead to the increase in frequency and intensity of [A.T.’s] negative and
    dangerous behaviors.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II pp. 20, 21.
    [24]   DCS has pointed to no evidence to counter Mother’s testimony that the
    decision to stop A.T.’s medication in 2016 was not a unilateral decision by
    Parents, but rather was a decision made in consultation with an agreement by
    A.T.’s then-care team. Thus, to the extent that the juvenile court relies on
    Finding No. twenty-one to support its conclusion that Parents unilaterally
    stopped A.T.’s medication in 2016, against the recommendation of A.T.’s
    doctors and caregivers, the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s
    finding but rather supports the opposite finding, i.e., that Parents had stopped
    A.T.’s medication in consultation and agreement with her psychiatrist and case
    worker.2
    2
    Although not specifically challenged by Mother, we note that Finding No. twenty-four is also not
    supported by the evidence in so far as it indicates that the decision to stop A.T.’s medication in 2016 “was a
    unilateral decision by Parents, against all professional and medical recommendations at the time[.]”
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 10. Again, Mother’s testimony, which was not countered by DCS, indicates
    that the decision to stop A.T.’s medication was a team decision, not a unilateral decision made by Parents,
    and that the decision was not made “against all professional and medical recommendations.” Appellant
    B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 10.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023                              Page 19 of 33
    b.      Finding Nos. Thirty-Three, Thirty-Five, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, and
    Seventy-Seven
    [25]   Finding No. thirty-three reads: “Parents believe [A.T.’s] suicidal ideations at
    school were a result of being redirected by the teacher and nothing more.”
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 11. Finding No. thirty-five reads: “Parents
    believe [A.T.’s] suicidal ideations were done for shock value and nothing
    more.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 11. Finding No. fifty-one reads:
    “Parents believed [A.T.’s] self-harming behaviors were only for attention and
    not intended for actual harm, as were her suicidal ideations.” Appellant B.T.’s
    App. Vol. II p. 13. Finding No. fifty-two reads: “Parents declined to safety
    plan regarding knives and sharp objects in the home. Parents refused to remove
    any barber shop supplies from their home (scissors and knives brother used for
    his business). They believed it was unnecessary as [A.T.] would only harm
    herself for attention and nothing more.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 13.
    Finding No. seventy-seven reads: “Parents declined to safety plan regarding
    weapons in the home, stating instead [A.T.] should know not to use them.”
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 16.
    [26]   On cross-examination of Mother, DCS inquired into A.T.’s attention-seeking
    behaviors, with the following exchange occurring:
    [DCS]:        Is it true that [A.T.] has attention seeking behaviors?
    [Mother]: Yes.
    [DCS]:        Is it true that one of those attention seeking
    behaviors is to express suicidal ideation?
    [Mother]: It can manifest that way.
    [DCS]:        Has [A.T.] ever actually attempted suicide?
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023        Page 20 of 33
    [Mother]: [A.T.] has hurt herself many times I don’t know if it
    was an attempt to suicide. She has reported both yes and no on
    the same incidents so I-I can’t speak to that.
    Tr. Vol. V p. 64. Mother also testified about A.T.’s more than thirty threats to
    commit suicide in late 2019 and early 2020, with Mother stating that the threats
    occurred primarily at school, “mostly when she was being told to do something
    that’s kind of what the teachers gave off is that [the threats occurred] mostly
    when she was being told like in a redirect.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 203. Mother further
    testified that they sought treatment for A.T. in response to her threats,
    describing her two short inpatient stays before she eventually was placed at
    Resource for nine and one-half months.
    [27]   Further, while one of A.T.’s teachers testified that Father had stated that A.T.’s
    behavior was “attention seeking,” he further testified that Father had indicated
    that he “just wanted to take her to the emergency room or the stress center.”
    Tr. Vol. II p. 72. A DCS representative who worked with the family indicated
    that Mother had indicated that she did not believe that a safety plan was
    warranted regarding weapons or sharp objects in the home “because they know
    that [A.T.] would only harm herself for attention.” Tr. Vol. II p. 108. The
    record does not support the finding that Parents were asked, much less that they
    refused, to remove the items from the home but rather the evidence centered on
    discussions about whether such items should be locked up or put away.
    [28]   The evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that Parents believed that
    A.T.’s behavior was, at least in part, attention-seeking. To the extent that
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023         Page 21 of 33
    Parents assert otherwise, their assertion amounts to a request for this court to
    reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 577–
    78. However, to the extent that the juvenile court used these findings to support
    the conclusions that Parents did not treat A.T.’s threats seriously or did nothing
    to attempt to provide her with any necessary care or treatment, the juvenile
    court’s conclusions are not supported by these findings as the evidence clearly
    established that Parents had taken A.T.’s threats seriously enough to seek
    various forms of treatment for A.T.
    c.      Finding No. Thirty-Seven
    [29]   Finding No. thirty-seven reads: “Parents believe Child’s report of seeing
    Samuel was an attempt at attention[-]seeking and nothing more.” Appellant
    B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 11. Mother’s testimony regarding A.T.’s report of seeing
    “Samuel” provided as follows:
    So there was this period of time where she began saying when
    she came back home that she was seeing this entity and that she
    could summon him and that he was standing behind us and that
    he was mocking us, or he didn’t agree with us, and so she would
    leave letters from Samuel to herself in her handwriting but she
    said they were from him if that makes sense. So we would find
    these letters and she would come and be like no he’s real stop
    telling me he’s not real and as I tried to be sensitive to this
    situation and say I believe that he is real to you but nobody else
    can see this and there is such a thing as a distortion of reality. So
    I tried to be very open with her that like, if she was using if for
    behavioral tendencies that needed to stop and we needed to
    figure out better ways. Like if she was trying to get something
    out of it whether that was attention seeking which we-we used a
    lot she, I said if this is an attention seeking procedure then we
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023        Page 22 of 33
    need to stop. If you are actually seeing this we need psychiatric
    help, so we obviously had Aspire so we started talking with her
    therapist and her psychiatric, she had a med specialist actually it
    was … that actually started suggesting we put her back on meds
    and we said trialing this and so by the time we got back to
    Zionsville they said they really saw a need for medication and so
    we did go ahead and reintroduce a physiatrist and a medication
    specialist to be on her team when she came to Zionsville.
    Tr. Vol. IV pp. 199–200. Mother’s testimony does not indicate that Parents
    believed that A.T.’s reports of seeing “Samuel” were nothing more than
    attention-seeking. DCS does not point to any additional evidence, but merely
    argues that the juvenile court could reasonably infer from the evidence that
    Parents believed that A.T.’s report were “attention[-]seeking and nothing
    more.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 11. We disagree. The evidence does
    not support the juvenile court’s finding that Parents discounted A.T.’s report as
    attention seeking and nothing more. As such, to the extent that the juvenile
    court relied on this finding to support its conclusion that Parents failed to treat
    A.T.’s mental-health issues seriously, such conclusion cannot be supported by
    this unsupported finding.
    d.      Finding Nos. Fifty-Eight and Fifty-Nine
    [30]   Finding No. fifty-eight reads: “Ms. Green[3] observed [A.T.] to be a thoughtful
    kind person and had no inappropriate interactions with her. [A.T.] worked
    3
    Katherine Green is a self-employed habilitation provider who met with A.T. when she “interviewed to
    become the Habilitation Provider and possibly to provide service[s]” for the family. Tr. Vol. II p. 202.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023                            Page 23 of 33
    toward her goals of impulse control, respecting relationships with others and
    appropriate interactions.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 14. Finding No.
    fifty-nine reads: “Ms. Green observed the interactions between Parents and
    [A.T.] to be stressful, negative and frustrating. Parents told [A.T.] ‘If you don’t
    start to act better, we are going to give you up.’” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II
    p. 14. Citing to Pitcavage v. Pitcavage, 
    11 N.E.3d 547
    , 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014),
    Mother argues that these findings are “inappropriate” because they merely
    recite a witness’s testimony. Appellant B.T.’s Br. p. 29. For its part, DCS
    asserts that the findings indicate that the juvenile court’s findings represent the
    court’s summary of Green’s testimony, which it claims the juvenile court found
    to be credible. We agree with DCS on this point. The juvenile court’s findings
    regarding Green’s testimony are an accurate summation of Green’s overall
    testimony.
    e.      Finding Nos. Seventy-Two and Seventy-Eight
    [31]   Finding No. seventy-two reads:
    October 3, 2021[,] [Family Case Manager (“FCM”)] Shelia
    Crossley held a safety planning meeting with Parents and [A.T.].
    Parents were adamant [A.T.] could not return to the home as
    they were fearful of her. The safety plan was written for [A.T.] to
    remain with the family friend pending a Child and Family Team
    Meeting (CFTM) to be held at the Boone County DCS Office on
    October 4, 2021.
    Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 15. Finding No. seventy-eight reads: “Parents
    did not believe [A.T.] was a harm to herself or others, as they believe her
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 24 of 33
    actions and behaviors are all attention seeking.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II
    p. 16. In challenging these findings, Mother asserts
    Findings #72 and #78 are unsupported by the evidence, and in
    any event are internally inconsistent. Parents self-evidently
    believed that A.T. was a danger, at least to others, as Mother’s
    testimony recounted countless examples of A.T.’s explosive
    behaviors. Moreover, it is counterintuitive that parents would be
    afraid of A.T. and yet also believe that all of her behaviors were
    to garner attention. These findings are also inconsistent with
    Parents’ repeated request—that went unheeded by DCS until
    A.T. physically assaulted a foster parent—that A.T. be admitted
    to a residential facility because of her behaviors.
    Appellant B.T.’s Br. p. 29. DCS does not respond to Mother’s arguments
    regarding these findings. We agree with Mother that the findings are
    inconsistent, and that Finding No. seventy-eight is unsupported by the record as
    the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Parents feared A.T. and
    believed that she was a threat to both herself and others. As for Finding No.
    seventy-two, the record reveals that following an episode in the family home,
    FCM Crossley had discussed a temporary safety plan with the family that
    included A.T. spending the night at a family friend’s home until a CFTM
    meeting could be held the next day. As such, Finding No. seventy-two is
    supported by the evidence.
    f.      Mother’s Additional Arguments
    [32]   Mother argues that “[s]tripping away the findings that lack any factual basis in
    the record, the [juvenile] court’s decision finding a CHINS-1 and -2 is
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 25 of 33
    inappropriate because none of the findings nor conclusions explain how the
    parents’ purported actions or omissions caused A.T.’s diagnoses” and the
    juvenile court’s decision “stretches the CHINS statute too far and delves into
    connecting dots that do not exist.” Appellant B.T.’s Br. p. 29 (emphasis in
    original). Mother further argues that DCS did not present any evidence to
    suggest that “had parents followed all treatment recommendations to a “T” that
    A.T. would not be in the same position today.” Appellant B.T.’s Br. pp. 29–30
    (emphasis in original). “Said another way, no evidence was presented that
    Parents caused, whether by act or omission, A.T.’s present status.” Appellant
    B.T.’s Br. p. 30 (emphasis in original). Mother correctly asserts that the
    juvenile court’s own findings indicated that A.T.’s behavior did not significantly
    change during periods when she was medicated versus unmedicated or
    receiving versus not receiving mental-health treatment.
    [33]   Mother also argues that the juvenile court’s determination that Parents
    abandoned A.T. is not supported by the evidence. We have previously
    concluded that “abandonment exists when there is such conduct on the part of
    a parent which evidences a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and
    relinquish all parental claims to the child.” In re Adoption of M.L.L., 
    810 N.E.2d 1088
    , 1092 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Mother asserts
    that Parents did not abandon A.T. but rather that “DCS foisted a Hobson’s
    choice upon Parents: Take A.T. back with them to a likely unsafe environment
    … or accept a substantiation.” Appellant B.T.’s Br. pp. 32–33. Mother further
    asserts that
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023     Page 26 of 33
    [i]f Parents intended on October 4, 2021[,] to abandon A.T., it
    was exceptionally poorly executed. The uncontroverted
    testimony was that Parents participated in wrap-around services
    after removal even after DCS sought to discontinue wrap-around,
    Tr. Vol. III, pp. 195–99, and then participated in family therapy
    through Oaklawn. 
    Id.
     at 241–42.
    Appellant B.T.’s Br. p. 33. We agree with Mother that the record does not
    support the juvenile court’s conclusion that Parents abandoned A.T.
    2.      Father’s Arguments
    a.      Abandonment
    [34]   Father challenges the juvenile court’s determination that Parents abandoned
    A.T., arguing that A.T. “was never abandoned by [Parents], period. Parents
    were thrust into in an extreme set of circumstances regarding how and under
    what conditions it would be literally, physically safe to keep [A.T.] in their
    home, in the first week of October of 2021,” after A.T. had threatened Mother
    and her brother. Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 23. Father further argues that
    It is at this critical point that DCS itself destroyed its own
    abandonment allegation. Rather than follow through with the
    plan, DCS waited for [Parents’] Wrap Around supports to leave,
    then dismissed the attending police officer, and demanded,
    threatened, and coerced [Parents] to take Child immediately, or
    face “charges” of neglect and abandonment. [Parents] never had
    the opportunity to follow through on the hospital plan, to confer
    with hospital staff, to continue discussions with the Wrap
    Around supports that had worked with them since July of 2021
    to try to maintain [A.T.] in the face of DCS’[s] own efforts to
    prevent the residential placement parents were requesting help in
    obtaining, which itself had already been successful in
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023      Page 27 of 33
    maintaining parent-approved shelter for Child for the two
    previous nights (October 2 and 3). Due to DCS’[s] unilateral
    disruption of [Parents’] crisis management plan, no one knows if
    any of a multitude of other events might have taken place…. By
    asserting [Parents] abandoned [A.T.], DCS whistles past the fact
    that [Parents] never actually refused to take [A.T.] home had the
    plan not been interrupted by DCS, and is merely speculating that
    [Parents] would have not taken her home, as well as speculating
    that the hospital would have released her in the first place.
    Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 24. Father asserts that “[a]bandonment never
    happened, abandonment was not proven or supported by sufficient evidence[.]”
    Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 25. As we concluded above, we must agree. The
    record clearly demonstrates, and even the juvenile court’s factual findings
    recognize, that Parents went to DCS on October 4, 2021, seeking help in
    acquiring what they believed, and what DCS ultimately determined, was
    appropriate care for A.T. Parents have demonstrated a pattern of providing for
    A.T.’s needs, including seeking outside assistance when necessary. Since A.T.
    has been removed from their care, Parents have actively participated in therapy
    in a manner consistent with the recommendations of A.T.’s therapist. Thus, to
    the extent that the juvenile court’s CHINS determination relating to Indiana
    Code section 31-34-1-1 is based on a determination that Parents had abandoned
    A.T., such a determination is not supported by the record.
    b.      Evidentiary Challenges
    [35]   Father also argues that the “[e]vidence is insufficient to sustain CHINS theory
    other than CHINS-6,” claiming that many of the juvenile court’s factual
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023    Page 28 of 33
    findings regarding the need for A.T. to be placed in residential treatment are
    inconsistent or “trap” parents. Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 29. Father points out
    that some of the juvenile court’s findings, including Findings Nos. nineteen,
    twenty-four, twenty-seven, and fifty, and conclusory paragraphs two and four
    are inconsistent as they both paint a picture that Parents did not do enough for
    A.T. but also somehow indicated that their act of advocating for the need for
    residential placement amounted to neglect and abandonment. For instance,
    Finding No. nineteen states that following A.T.’s second emergent stay, service
    providers recommended that Parents “pursue residential treatment for” A.T.
    but Finding No. fifty criticizes Parents for being “adamant” that residential
    treatment was the “only service that was appropriate for” A.T. Appellant
    B.T.’s App. Vol. II pp. 9, 13. Finding No. twenty-seven indicates that in 2018,
    a service provider suggested that residential treatment was “an appropriate
    option for” A.T., but that Parents opted to try a different treatment plan rather
    than seeking residential placement at that time. Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II
    p. 10. Father asserts that
    Again, it must be asked, are Parents to be blamed for trying to
    put [A.T.] in residential placement, or for keeping [A.T.] out of
    residential placement? In the [juvenile] court’s findings, they are
    blamed for both, most egregiously at the precise moment when
    DCS decided to open a case specifically because they knew
    residential placement was critical, which has obviously played
    out in real time since the case opened, as exactly correct.
    Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 31.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023       Page 29 of 33
    [36]   Finding No. twenty-four indicated that the decision to remove A.T. from
    medication was a “unilateral decision by Parents, against all professional and
    medical recommendations at the time, which they feel is justified because it is
    what Child wanted as well and Child thought talking to Mother was as good as
    a counselor.” Appellant B.T.’s App. Vol. II p. 10. As we mentioned above in
    Footnote 2, the juvenile court’s determination that the decision to stop A.T.’s
    medication was a unilateral decision made by Parents is not supported by the
    record. Father asserts that “[t]here is copious evidence that participation with
    [A.T.] in medication, therapy, and counseling, has no cause and effect
    relationship to [A.T.’s] behaviors escalating or de-escalating.”4 Appellant
    N.T.’s Br. p. 30. In support, Father points to the juvenile court’s other factual
    findings which outlined the various treatment options and placements sought
    and agreed to by Parents over the course of A.T.’s life.
    [37]   Father also challenges the juvenile court’s findings relating to A.T.’s education,
    stating that
    Findings in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 32 suggest [Parents] are at
    fault for not following recommendations for [A.T.] to be home-
    schooled or in online schooling. Findings in paragraphs 63 and
    64, then suggest [Parents’] requested controls on [A.T.]’s
    4
    Father claims that DCS’s allegation that Parents had neglected A.T. by stopping her medication or
    changing A.T.’s therapy treatment options in 2016 is countered by evidence indicating that since A.T.’s
    removal from Parents’ home, DCS has not always been consistent with A.T.’s counseling or medication
    management as it did not initially require A.T. to participate in therapy, counseling, or medication
    management. As we concluded above, the juvenile court’s findings regarding Parents’ decision to stop A.T.’s
    medication in 2016 are insufficient to support the juvenile court’s conclusions that Parents neglected A.T. or
    refused to provide her with necessary medical care.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023                             Page 30 of 33
    behaviors at Zionsville Middle School were unnecessary,
    baseless, and that there were “no behaviors of [A.T.’s] to be out
    of the ordinary for a child in [teacher’s] classroom or any typical
    intensive intervention student.”
    Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 31 (last set of brackets in original). Finding Nos.
    twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, and thirty-two can be read together as
    criticism for Parents enrolling A.T. in in-person schooling while Finding Nos.
    sixty-three and sixty-four can be read together as apparent criticism for Parents
    being too involved with A.T.’s schooling as the supporting testimony indicated
    that A.T. was, for a time, responding well to the in-person setting and was
    behaving as other children in her class. Father further argues that
    In either case, [P]arents are again blamed regardless of which
    direction they pivot. If [A.T.] is not put in a school facility, they
    are not following professional recommendations. When they put
    [A.T.] in a school facility, their parental decisions are found as
    neglectful or detrimental, even as they are proven to be prescient.
    Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 32.
    [38]   Father asserts that Parents’ “choice of schooling, medical care, and attempts to
    alleviate and modify [A.T.’s] consistently anti-social and self-harming behaviors
    through any means, and with professional advice, is a parental choice, one not
    to be lightly preplaced by DCS’[s] or the [juvenile] court’s own hindsight[-
    ]based criticism.” Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 32. Father also takes issue with the
    juvenile court’s conclusion that Parents “chose themselves over” A.T., pointing
    to the years of prior and continuing efforts that they have undertaken on A.T.’s
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023        Page 31 of 33
    behalf. Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 32. Father concludes his appellate arguments
    by asserting that
    This is the kind of case that calls for Appellate relief, and an
    establishment of a reasonable outcome that recognizes that
    parents facing an unwinnable situation do not need the State to
    pile on at the moment of crisis, instead of providing grace and
    help. Nineteen months after filing a CHINS petition, five full
    days of heated trial, and intensive preparation of an appeal on an
    888 page transcript later, finds us all exactly where [Parents]
    suggested was needed for [A.T.] on the day of removal, and what
    was predicted by the last residential therapist just three months
    before the CHINS case opened – with [A.T.] in a residential
    placement because of her unremedied behaviors.
    Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 33.
    3.      The Juvenile Court’s Conclusions are Not Supported by the Record
    [39]   The juvenile court appears to have relied heavily on its findings that Parents
    believed A.T.’s problematic behaviors were nothing more than attention-
    seeking and the fact that Parents “unilaterally” took A.T. off of her medication
    for a period between 2016 and 2018 as its main reasons for adjudicating A.T. to
    be a CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2. As is discussed
    above, the juvenile court’s reliance on these findings is erroneous as the findings
    are not supported by the evidence. Further, despite the juvenile court’s
    determination that Parents had displayed a pattern of disregarding the
    recommendations of service providers, the record indicates that Parents had not
    unilaterally made decisions regarding A.T.’s care, but rather made decisions
    after consultation with various service providers in both Missouri and Indiana.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023      Page 32 of 33
    The fact that some service providers might not have agreed with all of the
    decisions made regarding A.T.’s care over a number of years does not, in and of
    itself, support a determination that Parents neglected A.T.’s needs.
    [40]   Father argues that “[t]he evidence is at best equivocal in that no pattern of
    behavior corresponds to Child either being in or out of medication management
    or counseling.” Appellant N.T.’s Br. p. 30. The juvenile court’s factual
    findings indicate that Father is correct in this regard. The juvenile court’s
    conclusion that A.T. is a CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2
    are not supported by the record. Thus, while the juvenile court’s determination
    that A.T. is a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6 remains
    intact, we reverse the juvenile court’s determination that A.T. is a CHINS
    under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2.
    [41]   The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
    Riley, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-3051 | August 23, 2023      Page 33 of 33
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22A-JC-03051

Filed Date: 8/23/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2023