S.E. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 03 2017, 6:26 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Brooklyn, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
S.E., August 3, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A01-1702-JC-358
v. Appeal from the Vigo Circuit
Court
Indiana Department of Child The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Services, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
84C01-1607-JC-824, 84C01-1607-
JC-825
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 1 of 7
[1] S.E. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order adjudicating her children to
be Children in Need of Services (CHINS). On appeal, Mother argues that the
trial court’s order is not supported by sufficient evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Mother has two sons, B.E., born in January 2007, and A.M., born in September
2012 (collectively, the Children).1 The family first came to the attention of the
Department of Child Services (DCS) in November 2014, after law enforcement
found B.E. locked outside the home for approximately forty minutes in twenty-
degree weather. When Mother came home, it appeared to the Family Case
Manager (FCM) that Mother was under the influence, and there were human
feces found inside the home. The Children were removed from Mother’s care
at that time, but eventually returned and the case was closed successfully in
April 2015.
[4] In April 2016, FCM Melissa Eldred went to Mother’s brother’s home to
conduct an unrelated investigation concerning his children. When she arrived,
FCM Eldred could smell a very strong odor of marijuana from the sidewalk in
front of the house, and the smell intensified as she approached the house.
When FCM Eldred knocked on the door, she saw A.M. pull back the curtain.
1
The Children’s fathers are not actively involved in their lives and they have not participated in the DCS
assessment or this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 2 of 7
The residents of the home then answered the door, and while FCM Eldred was
talking to them, Mother and A.M. left through the back door. The individuals
present at the home refused to identify Mother, but FCM Eldred finally learned
Mother’s identity approximately a month later. On May 19, 2016, FCM Eldred
generated a report and an investigation began.
[5] The next day, FCM Eldred made an unannounced visit to Mother’s home,
during which Mother admitted to using methamphetamine a couple of days
earlier. Mother submitted to a drug screen and tested positive for
amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC. Prior to the filing of the CHINS
petitions, Mother was referred for a substance abuse assessment, random drug
screens, and home-based case management. Mother made an appointment for
her substance abuse assessment, but did not show up and did not reschedule,
stating that she would not comply with services until court ordered to do so.
Mother did submit to a number of drug screens, and she tested positive for
illegal drugs numerous times. Specifically, she tested positive for THC six more
times and amphetamine and methamphetamine two more times. Mother’s last
positive drug screen was August 1, 2016; after that, she refused to submit to any
more drug screens. Mother’s participation in home-based case management
was limited and sporadic, with the majority of Mother’s participation occurring
in the weeks preceding the CHINS fact-finding hearing.
[6] During this time, DCS also learned that B.E. had missed eleven days of school
and been tardy fourteen times. Mother told FCM Abigail Tracy that the
reasons for B.E.’s absences were “not DCS’s business.” Fact Finding Hearing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 3 of 7
Transcript at 25. Additionally, on several occasions, Mother needed monetary
assistance to pay her utility bills in order to avoid being evicted.
[7] DCS filed petitions alleging that the Children were CHINS on July 29, 2016.
The Children remained in Mother’s care, and a fact-finding hearing was held on
December 12, 2016. On December 30, 2016, the trial court issued its order
adjudicating the Children CHINS. After a dispositional hearing was held but
prior to the entry of a written dispositional order, DCS filed a petition to modify
in which it sought the Children’s removal from Mother’s care due to her
continued refusal to submit to drug screens as ordered. The trial court held a
hearing on the petition to modify on January 6, 2017, at which Mother failed to
appear. On January 17, 2016, the court issued an order granting the petition to
modify and authorizing the Children’s continued placement in foster care. On
January 23, 2017, the court entered its dispositional decree ordering Mother to
participate in services. Mother now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[8] Mother argues that the trial court’s CHINS finding was not supported by
sufficient evidence. Where, as here, a trial court enters findings of fact and
conclusions of law in support of its CHINS determination, we apply a two-
tiered standard of review. Parmeter v. Cass Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 878 N.E.2d
444, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). First, we consider whether the evidence
supports the findings, and second, whether the findings support the judgment.
Id. We will not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 4 of 7
erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no
facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly
erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. While we defer to the
trial court’s findings of fact, we do not do so as to its conclusions of law. Id.Additionally, we will not reweigh the evidence; rather, we consider the
evidence favorable to the judgment and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the judgment. Id.[9] “Because a CHINS proceeding is a civil action, 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). In reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a CHINS determination, we consider
only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences
flowing therefrom. In re J.L., 919 N.E.2d 561, 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
[10] In this case, DCS alleged that the Children were CHINS pursuant to Ind. Code
§ 31-34-1-1, which provides that a child under the age of eighteen is a CHINS
under the following circumstances:
(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 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 5 of 7
(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court.
[11] On appeal, Mother argues that in the absence of evidence that her
methamphetamine use occurred in the Children’s presence, her three positive
tests for methamphetamine are insufficient to support a CHINS adjudication.
In support of her argument, Mother cites Perrine v. Marion Cnty. Office of Child
Servs., 866 N.E.2d 269, 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), in which this court found that
a mother’s single admitted use of methamphetamine outside her child’s
presence was insufficient to support a CHINS finding.
[12] The facts of this case are readily distinguishable. This case began because A.M.
was present with Mother inside a home that smelled strongly of marijuana—in
other words, there was evidence that Mother exposed A.M. to illegal drug use.
Moreover, in the span of less than three months, Mother tested positive for
amphetamine and methamphetamine three times and THC seven times, and
she then refused to submit to any more drug screens. Additionally, Mother had
a previous DCS case in November 2014, she was unemployed and consistently
needed assistance with paying her utility bills in order to avoid eviction, and
B.E. had missed eleven days of school and been tardy fourteen times. This
evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the Children’s mental or
physical conditions were seriously endangered as a result of Mother’s untreated
substance abuse problems, her difficulty maintaining suitable housing, and her
failure to ensure that B.E. attended school.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 6 of 7
[13] We note further that Mother refused to engage in services and submit to drug
screens voluntarily, and she stated that she would not comply with services
until ordered to do so. This evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s
finding that the Children needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that they
were not receiving and was unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court. In sum, DCS presented sufficient evidence
to support the trial court’s CHINS findings.
[14] Judgment affirmed.
[15] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1702-JC-358 | August 3, 2017 Page 7 of 7