MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 29 2016, 7:55 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Robert E. Shive Gregory F. Zoeller
Hollingsworth & Zivitz, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Carmel, Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of J.C. and K.C., January 29, 2016
Children in Need of Services, Court of Appeals Case No.
and 54A05-1506-JC-568
Appeal from the Montgomery
J.S. (Mother) and M.S. Circuit Court
(Stepfather), The Honorable Harry A. Siamas,
Judge
Appellants-Respondents, Trial Court Cause Nos.
54C01-1409-JC-203, -205
v.
Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 1 of 10
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] J.S. (“Mother”) and M.S. (“Stepfather) appeal the trial court’s adjudication of
minor children J.C. and K.C. as children in need of services (“CHINS”). The
sole restated issue for our review is whether sufficient evidence supports the trial
court’s determination that the children are CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code
Sections 31-34-1-1 and -3. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In September 2014, the Montgomery County Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) filed CHINS petitions regarding J.C. and K.C. after K.C. reported that
Stepfather had been molesting her since she was seven years old and that he
had physically abused J.C. The children were removed from the home and
subsequently placed in the care of Father on September 28, 2014. In November
2014, DCS filed amended petitions after J.C. reported that he had been both
physically and sexually abused by Stepfather. Factfinding proceedings were
held on January 15, February 12, and March 13, 2015. In its order dated
March 31, 2015, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact: 1
1
The trial court’s order refers to the parties by their full names. We use “Mother,” “Stepfather,” “Father,”
and initials where appropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 2 of 10
1. J.C. was born on January 12, 2002. His parents are Mother
and Father.
2. K.C. was born December 17, 1999. Her parents are Mother
and Father.
3. J.S. was born November 2, 2006. His parents are Mother and
Stepfather.
4. Mother and Stepfather met and began living together in 2005
when they lived in Florida. For the most part all three children
lived with Mother and Stepfather except for brief periods when
K.C. and J.C. lived with their father. The family relocated to
Indiana in 2012. Mother and Stepfather married in June 2014.
Both Mother and Stepfather worked in teaching positions in
Florida and Indiana.
5. The Florida Department of Families and Children
investigated alleged physical abuse of K.C. or J.C. on three
occasions. None of these reports were substantiated although
family services were recommended more than once.
6. Mother admittedly delegated all responsibility for disciplining
the children to Stepfather. K.C. and J.C. resented Stepfather’s
discipline of them and this continued to be a source of conflict
within the family.
7. K.C. testified that Stepfather had sexually molested her on
many occasions for many years both in Florida and Indiana.
K.C. has repeated these allegations to various people, in her
deposition, and while testifying during the fact finding hearing.
While her reports and testimony have inconsistencies in some
details and she seems to have remembered more incidents of
molestations since her first report in September 2014 the Court
finds her to be credible. Stepfather touched K.C.’s breasts,
vagina and buttocks inappropriately both in Florida and Indiana.
The last touching occurred in 2014. K.C. told her mother that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 3 of 10
Stepfather molested her. Mother did not believe her. At the time
of the hearing both Mother and Stepfather continue to deny that
Stepfather molested K.C.
8. As the result of K.C.’s traumatic experiences she has
demonstrated self-harming behaviors including cutting, suicide
ideation, depression, anxiety, low self esteem, confusion about
her relationship with her mother, and she is at risk for substance
abuse. She feels powerless and hopeless. K.C. needs intensive
mental health treatment to address the emotional and
psychological problems related to the trauma.
9. Mother has had only one contact with K.C. or J.C. since the
DCS took the children into protective custody in September
2014. Mother does not want to reunite with K.C. and does not
appear to be motivated to reunite with J.C. either.
10. Stepfather has subjected J.C. to inappropriate discipline on
several occasions. J.C. is a hemophiliac and bruises easily.
Stepfather has hit or shoved J.C. with his hands in Indiana.
11. Father admits that J.C. and K.C. need services that he does
not believe that he can provide, and he believes that the DCS
should remain involved with the children so that K.C. and J.C.
can continue to receive mental health treatment in order to
address the issues that are troubling both children.
12. The DCS removed K.C. and J.C. from Mother in September
2014 and both children were placed with Father who lives in
Illinois. Thereafter Father obtained legal custody of K.C. and
J.C.
13. Both J.C. and K.C. require services including mental health
treatment in order to deal with issues of trauma, abuse and
separation from their mother, as well as other mental health
issues.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 4 of 10
Appellants’ App. at 52-54.
[3] Based upon these findings of fact, the trial court determined that DCS proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that J.C. and K.C. were CHINS pursuant
to Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -3. Specifically, the court concluded
that the preponderance of the evidence supports that K.C. was molested while
in Mother’s care and that Mother would not protect her from future abuse. The
court further concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supports that
J.C. was physically abused while in Mother’s care and that Mother would not
protect him from future abuse. The trial court found that “Mother is totally
aligned with [Stepfather] and against her two older children” and that “Mother
does not want the older children back in her home.” Id. at 56-57. Accordingly,
the court adjudicated J.C. and K.C. as CHINS and ordered that they remain in
the placement with Father until further order of the court. 2 Mother and
Stepfather now appeal. 3
Discussion and Decision
[4] Mother and Stepfather contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the
trial court’s adjudication of J.C. and K.C. as CHINS. Indiana courts recognize
2
As found by the trial court, Father admitted that J.C. and K.C. were CHINS and requested that DCS stay
involved with the children so that they can receive the therapy and counseling they need. He does not
participate in this appeal.
3
Although a CHINS petition was also filed regarding the minor child J.S., the trial court determined that
DCS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that J.S. was a CHINS, and thus dismissed the
petition as to him. Neither party appeals that determination.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 5 of 10
that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children without undue
influence from the State, but that right is limited by the State’s compelling
interest in protecting the welfare of children. In re Ju.L., 952 N.E.2d 771, 776
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011). A CHINS proceeding is a civil action in which the State
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a child
meets the statutory definition of a CHINS. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105
(Ind. 2010); Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3.
[5] Here, the trial court adjudicated the children as CHINS pursuant to Indiana
Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -3. To meet its burden of establishing CHINS
status pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, DCS must prove that the
child is under age eighteen and 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; 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.
[6] Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-3(a) and -(b) provide in relevant part that a child
is a CHINS if the child is under age eighteen and the victim of an enumerated
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 6 of 10
sex offense 4 or lives in the same household as another child who is the victim of
an enumerated sex offense and, “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.” Our
supreme court has noted that the fact that a child’s needs are unlikely to be met
without coercive intervention is perhaps the most critical of the considerations
when determining whether the State’s intrusion into the ordinarily private
sphere of the family is warranted. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014).
[7] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a CHINS
adjudication, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In
re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). We will consider only the evidence
favorable to the trial court’s judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom. Id. Because no statute expressly requires formal findings in a
CHINS factfinding order, and because it appears that neither party in this case
requested them pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), as to the issues covered
by the court’s sua sponte findings, we will determine whether the evidence
supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. S.D., 2
N.E.3d at 1287. We review the remaining issues under the general judgment
standard, and we will affirm the judgment if it can be sustained on any legal
theory supported by the evidence. Id.
4
Here, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that K.C. was a victim of child molesting.
See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 7 of 10
[8] Mother and Stepfather argue that “the weight of the evidence does not support
the judgment” that J.C. and K.C. are CHINS. Appellants’ Br. at 24. The crux
of their argument is that, absent any physical or medical evidence to
substantiate the sexual abuse allegations against Stepfather, the evidence is
insufficient to support a CHINS adjudication pursuant to Indiana Code Section
31-34-1-3. More precisely, they assert that “inconsistencies” in K.C.’s various
accounts of sexual abuse demonstrate that her testimony regarding the abuse
was not credible and cannot support, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
trial court’s conclusion that Stepfather molested K.C. Id. at 29.
[9] First, we note that Mother and Stepfather cite no authority, and we are
unaware of any, that requires DCS to present physical or medical evidence to
support sexual abuse allegations in a CHINS proceeding. Moreover, our
review of the record reveals that K.C.’s testimony during factfinding was
copious, graphic, and heart-wrenching regarding the molestations perpetrated
by Stepfather. The trial court specifically noted that although K.C.’s prior
reports of the sexual abuse and her testimony have “inconsistencies in some
details” the court found her to be “credible.” Appellant’s App. at 53. We
interpret the entirety of Mother and Stepfather’s argument as an invitation for
this Court to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we
may not do. DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
determination that K.C. was the victim of a sex offense as required by Indiana
Code Section 31-34-1-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 8 of 10
[10] Mother and Stepfather also maintain that the trial court’s findings are
“insufficiently articulated” and too vague to support CHINS adjudications
under either Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 or -3 because the court did not
specifically delineate the statutory “subsection applied,” “the elements of the
subsection” that were met, or “the specific facts found to qualify K.C. and J.C.
as children in need of services.” Appellants’ Br. at 31-32. We could not
disagree more. We reiterate that the trial court here was not required to make
specific findings at all, much less with the specificity urged by Mother and
Stepfather. See S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. In any event, the trial court cited both
applicable statutes and made adequately detailed factual findings regarding the
sexual abuse suffered by K.C. and the physical abuse suffered by J.C. at the
hands of Stepfather, as well as the severe emotional trauma experienced by the
children as a result. The court made further findings regarding Mother’s refusal
to intervene to protect the children despite her knowledge of the abuse. Indeed,
the court found that Mother continues to disbelieve that Stepfather has ever
molested, abused, or endangered J.C. and K.C. Based upon our review of the
record as a whole and the evidence most favorable to the judgment, there is
little question that, pursuant to both Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -3,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 9 of 10
J.C. and K.C. need care, treatment, or rehabilitation that is unlikely to be
provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. 5
[11] In sum, sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s findings, and those findings
support the trial court’s CHINS adjudication. The judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
[12] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.
5
We are unpersuaded by Mother and Stepfather’s claim that the coercive intervention of the court was
unnecessary here because, by the time of the factfinding hearing, Father had been granted legal and physical
custody of J.C. and K.C. pursuant to a modified dissolution decree between Mother and Father. See S.D., 2
N.E.3d at 1290 (CHINS finding should consider the family’s condition not just when the case is filed, but
also when it is heard). First, Mother and Stepfather fail to direct us to any evidence to support their claim,
and we will not search the record on their behalf. Therefore, the argument is waived. See Vandenburgh v.
Vandenburgh, 916 N.E.2d 723, 729-30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (it is a complaining party’s duty pursuant to Ind.
Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) to direct our attention to the portion of the record supporting his contention; the
purpose of the rule is to relieve courts of the burden of searching the record and stating a party’s case for him;
waiver is appropriate where noncompliance with appellate rules impedes our review). Waiver
notwithstanding, Father admitted that J.C. and K.C. were CHINS, and regardless of the alleged custody
arrangement, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the coercive intervention of the court is
necessary to ensure that the children continue to receive the needed mental health therapy and counseling
that Father stated he is financially unable to provide.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A05-1506-JC-568| January 29, 2016 Page 10 of 10