In the Matter of: L.B., C.L., B.L., G.L., M.L., and T.L. Children in Need of Services, C.B. and T.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 18 2017, 8:37 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Christopher L. Arrington David E. Corey
Christopher L. Arrington Attorney at Deputy Attorneys General
Law, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana
Danville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: January 18, 2017
Court of Appeals Case No.
L.B., C.L., B.L., G.L., M.L., and T.L. 32A01-1606-JC-1367
Children in Need of Services,
Appeal from the Hendricks
C.B. and T.B. Superior Court
Appellants-Respondents, The Honorable Karen M. Love,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
32D03-1509-JC-88
Indiana Department of Child 32D03-1509-JC-89
Services, 32D03-1509-JC-90
32D03-1509-JC-91
Appellee-Petitioner.
32D03-1509-JC-92
32D03-1509-JC-93
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 1 of 13
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] C.B. (“Mother”) and T.B. (“Father”) are married, each with children from a
prior marriage. Their six minor children (the “Children”) include Father’s son,
L.B., who was fifteen at the time of the instant proceedings, and Mother’s five
children (“Mother’s Children”), seventeen-year-old G.L., fifteen-year-old C.L.,
thirteen-year-old T.L., eleven-year-old B.L., and eight-year-old M.L. Father
and Mother jointly appeal the juvenile court’s adjudication of the Children as
children in need of services (“CHINS”), raising the sole restated issue of
whether the evidence is sufficient to support the CHINS adjudication.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In the spring of 2015, Mother and Father established a residence in Pittsboro.
Mother’s Children lived at the residence, and L.B. visited the residence on
Wednesday evenings and also spent every other weekend there.
[4] From August 2015 to September 2015, the Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) received six separate reports relating to three incidents involving the
Children. Police also responded to the residence four times over a similar
period. The first time police responded to the residence was in early July when
the Children were not home. Father had called 9-1-1 because Mother had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 2 of 13
placed a loaded gun in her mouth. Mother entered inpatient care for seventy-
two hours and then began outpatient therapy.
[5] The first reported incident involving a child occurred in early August, during
the period when Mother was still attending outpatient therapy. Father started
an argument with Mother while C.L., G.L., and T.L. were in the kitchen, and
Father began yelling at Mother. Father was drinking alcohol that night, and at
that time Father regularly drank alcohol to excess. Father told C.L. and G.L.
to go to their rooms, but C.L. refused to leave because he was concerned about
Mother’s and G.L.’s safety. Father continued to tell C.L. to go to his room, but
C.L. would not leave the kitchen. Father pushed C.L. into a wall and C.L. fell
near the stairs leading downstairs. Mother told Father not to push C.L. like
that, and then G.L. told Father that he could not touch them like that. Father
responded that he could touch them. Father then pushed G.L., whose head hit
the wall. Father next “herded” C.L. approximately five feet down the hall by
chest bumping him.
[6] Mother told G.L. to call the police, and G.L. complied. Deputy Anthony
Goodpaster (“Deputy Goodpaster”) responded to the call, and observed that
Father smelled of alcohol and had glassy, bloodshot eyes. Deputy Goodpaster
spoke with C.L., who was anxious, and could not stand in one spot. When
Deputy Goodpaster spoke with Mother, she said there was an argument but felt
it was not necessary for the police to be there.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 3 of 13
[7] Following the incident, Family Case Manager Sarah Ash (“FCM Ash”) of the
Hendricks County Office of the DCS conducted an assessment. Father initially
denied touching C.L. but eventually admitted he shoved and pushed C.L. down
the hall. Father told FCM Ash that this was a “child problem not a parent
problem.” (Tr. at 348.) FCM Ash also spoke with Mother, who said she
believed Father had a drinking problem, anger issues, and was hypersensitive
when it came to the children. Mother said that the situation between Father
and the children was stressful and they argued, and she was happy FCM Ash
was there because she thought FCM Ash could force Father to participate in
services. FCM Ash observed that Mother seemed nervous when speaking, was
looking over her shoulder, and wanted to be separate from Father when talking
to FCM Ash. At the end of the visit, FCM Ash provided information about
counseling services and scheduled an appointment to create a safety plan.
[8] Before FCM Ash returned to develop a safety plan, DCS received reports about
another incident. This incident involved L.B., who at some point prior to 2015
was diagnosed with ADHD, and could at times enter what Father termed an
“ADHD meltdown.” (Tr. at 780.) L.B.’s mother, D.B., lives in Noblesville,
which is approximately forty-five minutes from Pittsboro. In late August,
Father drove to Noblesville to pick up L.B. for midweek parenting time.
During the drive to Pittsboro, Father discussed parenting time with L.B., telling
L.B. that he was to cooperate when Father came to pick him up. During the
discussion in the car, L.B. was obviously upset, “emotionally in chaos,” (Tr. at
779), and felt caught in the middle of his parent’s high-conflict divorce. Once
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 4 of 13
Father and L.B. arrived in Pittsboro, Father continued discussing parenting
time with L.B., who became increasingly emotional. Father believed that L.B.
entered an “ADHD meltdown,” and at some point during the “meltdown,”
Father placed his hand on L.B.’s chest. No one else was home at the time.
[9] Later that day, after D.B. picked up L.B., she called the Hendricks County
Sheriff’s Department, and Deputy Goodpaster again responded to the call.
After speaking with L.B. and D.B., Deputy Goodpaster went to Father’s and
Mother’s home, and Father denied any physical altercation. Deputy
Goodpaster smelled alcohol and believed that Father was intoxicated because
of Father’s bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness.
[10] The third incident occurred in mid-September, when Father, Mother, and the
Children were at the Pittsboro residence. Father looked out the window and
observed L.B. and C.L. playing outside. Father claimed he saw L.B. holding a
ditch ax, swinging it at C.L. and also using the ax to strike a fence post. Father
yelled for the boys to come in. When the boys came inside, Father told C.L. to
go do something else, and he did. Father then told L.B. he was going to punish
him for damaging the fence post and because L.B. did not come inside as
quickly as Father thought he should. Father told L.B. he was going to spank
him with his belt. When L.B. questioned why Father was going to spank him,
Father interpreted the questions as challenging Father’s authority. Father and
L.B. took their argument to the enclosed porch on the back side of the home.
Father recorded part of the encounter on his cellphone. During the encounter,
Father repeatedly told L.B. to turn around. At one point, Father said he would
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 5 of 13
take L.B. down, and L.B. urged him do it. The two then tumbled to the porch
floor, and Father said, “Big man, huh?” L.B.’s voice became weaker and raspy
as he kept asking Father to please get off of him.
[11] While Father and L.B. were arguing, C.L. went around the house to the
enclosed porch, and M.L. was with him. M.L. opened the door and gasped.
C.L. saw L.B. on his back with Father straddling him. Father had his forearm
pressing down on what C.L. thought was L.B.’s throat, and Father had a belt in
his hand. The recording captured Father telling someone to give him “the
phone” and he then shut the door. Father told C.L. that he would be next.
[12] Father admitted that he was on top of L.B. until L.B. “went limp.” (Tr. at 873.)
Father got off of L.B. and spanked L.B. on his buttocks. Father reprimanded
L.B., and in a raised and angry voice repeatedly asked L.B. what he was
thinking. Father and L.B. went inside the home, and L.B. got increasingly
upset and entered an “ADHD meltdown” in front of Mother and the rest of the
family. Father then took L.B. upstairs to the master bedroom. During the
encounter upstairs, Father again spanked L.B. with his belt. Father also tried
showing L.B. the recording of their encounter downstairs, and when Father did,
L.B. became more and more emotional to the point of crying. C.L., G.L., M.L.
and Mother heard Father and L.B. yelling, and went upstairs to investigate.
When Mother opened the door, C.L. saw L.B. backed up against the wall with
Father in his face. L.B.’s face was red, he was crying, and he looked both
scared and angry. L.B. asked Mother to call the police. Mother went into the
bathroom and either C.L. or G.L. called the police.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 6 of 13
[13] Multiple officers responded to the police call, and Hendricks County Sheriff’s
Deputy Nathan Hibschman (“Deputy Hibschman”) was the investigating
officer. L.B. told Deputy Hibschman that he was strangled and that Father had
been on top of him, pressing down with all of his weight. When L.B. spoke, he
was visibly upset, on the verge of tears, and shaking. Deputy Hibschman did
not observe red marks on L.B.’s neck or see obvious signs of injury, but did not
examine L.B.’s chest or buttocks. When Deputy Hibschman spoke with
Father, Father was calm. Father told Deputy Hibschman that L.B. was defiant
and that Father was attempting to discipline L.B. Another responding officer
spoke with C.L., who observed that C.L. was upset and anxious. C.L. was
nervous with fast speech. The officer also observed L.B., who was crying and
upset but who calmed down when he left with D.B.
[14] Beyond conducting basic investigations, the police took no further action after
responding to the three incidents involving Father. On September 30, 2015,
DCS filed CHINS petitions as to all of the Children. Following a fact-finding
hearing spanning several days, the juvenile court entered a single order
adjudicating all of the Children as CHINS on March 22, 2016. The juvenile
court entered a dispositional order on May 26, 2016.
[15] This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 7 of 13
[16] Mother and Father challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
CHINS adjudications. For a child to be adjudicated a CHINS, “‘the State must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by
the juvenile code.’” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012) (quoting In
re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010)). In reviewing a CHINS adjudication,
we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. We
consider only the evidence that supports the juvenile court’s decision and all
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id.
[17] Here, the juvenile court entered findings and conclusions sua sponte, pursuant to
Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). In reviewing findings and conclusions, we give due
regard to the trial court’s ability to assess the credibility of witnesses. Ind. Trial
Rule 52(A). We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are
clearly erroneous. Id. “As to the issues covered by the findings, we apply the
two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether
the findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind.
2014). We review any remaining issue under the general judgment standard,
under which a judgment will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal
theory supported by the evidence. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only
when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by
inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). A judgment is
clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. State v. Int'l Bus.
Machines Corp., 51 N.E.3d 150, 158 (Ind. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 8 of 13
[18] In this case, DCS alleged that the Children were CHINS under Indiana Code
section 31-34-1-1,1 which reads as follows:
A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes
eighteen (18) years of age:
(1) the child’s physical or mental condition is seriously
impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the
inability, refusal, or neglect of the child’s parent, guardian,
or custodian to supply the child with necessary food,
clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision;
and
(2) the child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that:
(A) the child is not receiving; and
(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
coercive intervention of the court.
[19] Mother and Father first argue that DCS failed to prove that their actions or
inactions seriously endangered the Children’s physical or mental condition.
Mother and Father focus their argument on whether Father was justified in
imposing discipline of the type he used during the incidents, observing that
Indiana Code section 31-34-1-15 expressly provides that the CHINS statutes do
not limit a parent’s right to use “reasonable corporal punishment when
1
DCS also petitioned under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2. However, because each CHINS adjudication,
at minimum, rested upon Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, we need only discuss this section.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 9 of 13
disciplining the child.” Mother and Father also point out that the juvenile
court, in its findings and conclusions, used language such as “battering” (App.
Vol. 2 at 193) and “violence” (App. Vol. 2 at 192) that appeared to improperly
cast disapproval on their protected choice of parenting style. The juvenile
court, however, did not ultimately adjudicate the Children CHINS because of
any of Father’s physical interactions with them. Rather, as Mother and Father
acknowledge, the adjudication was based on Father’s mental abuse of the
Children.
[20] Mother and Father also briefly assert that any so-called mental abuse related
only to Father’s authoritarian parenting style, which should be protected. Here,
there was testimony that an authoritarian approach with a child with ADHD
can make things more difficult and frustrating for the child. Moreover, in the
months preceding the incidents, L.B. appeared to be on edge and overly
stressed whenever parenting time with Father neared. Following the incidents,
L.B. was diagnosed with anxiety, and a primary source of his anxiety was the
possibility of returning to live with Father. One witness characterized L.B.’s
relationship with Father as a “vicious cycle” (Tr. at 733), and the juvenile court
determined that Father “deliberately pushes [L.B.] into ‘ADHD meltdowns.’”
(App. Vol. 2 at 195.) The juvenile court found the first incident involving L.B.
illustrative, where Father began a lengthy discussion about parenting time and
then continued the discussion after Father saw L.B. become increasingly
emotional and approach a “meltdown.” Ultimately, irrespective of potentially
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 10 of 13
protected parenting choices, there was sufficient evidence from which the
juvenile court could conclude that father mentally abused L.B.
[21] As to Mother’s Children, at one point before the reported incidents, Father
locked Mother and some of Mother’s Children out of the house at night, and
refused to allow them to come back inside. That night, those children slept at
their biological father’s house. B.L., their biological father, told FCM Ash that
he felt there was mental abuse going on in Mother’s and Father’s household.
B.L. had witnessed Mother passed out drunk at the table while Father was
“blowing a gasket” at Mother’s Children. (Tr. at 403.) G.L. and C.L. said they
were afraid of Father, did not feel safe in the home, and lacked support from
Mother. G.L. kept food in her room because she and her siblings were hungry
but did not want to go downstairs because they did not want to get yelled at.
Moreover, the guardian ad litem appointed to Mother’s Children had concerns
for their emotional well-being. Thus, the evidence supports a determination
that the Children were mentally abused.
[22] Mother and Father also challenge the sufficiency of evidence that the Children
needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation they were not receiving. Their
argument, however, focuses only on whether the Children’s need for counseling
arose from Father’s protected parenting choices. Having already concluded
that there was sufficient evidence of mental abuse, Mother and Father have not
directed us to reversible error with respect to this statutory requirement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 11 of 13
[23] Last, Mother and Father challenge whether DCS presented sufficient evidence
that the Children were not likely to receive needed care, treatment, or
rehabilitation without the coercive intervention of the court. Our supreme
court has observed that this “element guards against unwarranted State
interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families where parents
lack the ability to provide for their children, not merely where they encounter
difficulty in meeting a child’s needs.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287 (internal
quotations omitted). Moreover, it is well-established that “a CHINS
adjudication may not be based solely on conditions that no longer exist,”
rather, the juvenile court “should also consider the parents’ situation at the time
the case is heard.” In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)
(internal citation omitted).
[24] Here, L.B.’s therapist testified that, at this point in L.B.’s therapy, L.B. needed
to cease contact with Father so that L.B. could successfully undergo the
individual therapy he needed. Yet, in light of Father’s and D.B.’s high-conflict
divorce, the juvenile court observed that D.B. would be unable to prevent
Father from contacting L.B. without the court’s intervention. With respect to
Mother’s Children, FCM Ash suggested that the court order family therapy,
and the evidence supported the inference that Mother’s Children were in need
of family therapy—therapy that would require Father’s participation. Although
Father testified that he was undergoing some degree of therapy, the juvenile
court had reason to doubt whether Father would willingly participate in the sort
of therapy Mother’s Children needed. For example, in the context of Father’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 12 of 13
dissolution proceeding, Father had assured the guardian ad litem that he would
get counseling, but he did not. Father had also previously refused to participate
in a child and family team meeting that FCM Ash requested. Accordingly,
there is sufficient evidence from which the juvenile court could conclude that
the court’s coercive intervention was necessary.
Conclusion
[25] There was sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication.
[26] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1606-JC-1367 | January 18, 2017 Page 13 of 13