Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-624 | September 13, 2018 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Donald J. Frew

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of N.I. (Minor 

Child), a Child in Need of 

Services, and

K.R.H. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

September 13, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JC-624

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charles F. Pratt, 

Judge

The Honorable Jennifer M. 

Young, Temporary Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D08-1707-JC-504

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-624 | September 13, 2018 Page 2 of 5

[1] K.R.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s determination that N.I. (“Child”), 

her minor child, is a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother contends 

that the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove that any 

care, treatment, or rehabilitation that Child needs is unlikely to be provided or 

accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. We agree and therefore 

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

[2] Child was born in November 2011. In July 2017, Child was living with Mother 

and Mother’s sister and niece in the maternal grandmother’s apartment, and 

Child’s father was incarcerated. At that time, Mother’s six children from 

another father had been adjudicated CHINS in separate proceedings and were 

living in foster care. Mother was arrested, and Child was placed in foster care; 

the record does not indicate why Child was not placed with Child’s relatives.1 

DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS based on Mother’s 

inability to provide her with independent housing, as well as Mother’s addiction 

to alcohol, incarceration, and noncompliance with her participation plan in the 

other CHINS proceedings. DCS later alleged that Mother tested positive for 

THC. After a factfinding hearing in October 2017, the trial court found Child 

to be a CHINS in an order that reads in relevant part as follows:

1

Indiana Code Section 31-34-4-2(a) provides that DCS must consider placing a child alleged to be a CHINS 

who is taken into custody under court order with a “suitable and willing relative” or a de facto custodian 

“before considering any other out-of-home placement.” The record suggests that Child was taken into 

custody under court order but is silent regarding whether Mother’s relatives were unsuitable or unwilling to 

have Child placed with them.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-624 | September 13, 2018 Page 3 of 5

H. At the time of the close of evidence [Mother] was in jail. Her 

latest incarceration is for a charge of criminal conversion. She is 

not therefore able to provide the child with the necessary food, 

clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision. Her voluntary 

choices to engage in criminal behavior seriously endanger 

[Child’s] physical or mental condition.

I. Given the fact that (a) [Mother] has not complied with services 

as ordered under the [dispositional decrees in the other CHINS 

cases]; (b) has not resolved her addiction issues as evidenced by 

her diagnostic assessment of June 2017; and (c) her past and 

current incidents of incarceration in criminal charges, the Court 

finds that [Mother] and [Child] require the provision of services 

that she is [sic] unlikely to receive without the coercive 

intervention of the Court.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 20. In January 2018, a dispositional hearing was 

held and a dispositional order was issued, from which Mother now appeals.

[3] Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 provides that a child is a CHINS if, before the 

child becomes eighteen years of age, “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 

“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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-624 | September 13, 2018 Page 4 of 5

intervention of the court.”2 DCS has the burden of proving that a child is a 

CHINS by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d 828, 835-36 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3). “When reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support a CHINS adjudication, we consider only 

the evidence favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences raised by 

that evidence.” Id. at 836. “An inference is not reasonable when it rests on no 

more than speculation or conjecture.” Pelak v. Indiana Indus. Servs., Inc., 831

N.E.2d 765, 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied (2006).

[4] Mother acknowledges that DCS presented evidence that she had struggled to 

comply with the participation plan in the other CHINS proceedings with 

respect to substance abuse/treatment, housing, and employment, etc., but she 

argues that DCS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any 

care, treatment, or rehabilitation that Child needs is unlikely to be provided or 

accepted without the coercive intervention of the court: “[W]hile [M]other’s 

living condition had been somewhat inconsistent, it would appear that [Child] 

had been consistently residing in relative placement.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. 

DCS responds that “[t]he evidence is clear that Mother failed to meet the needs 

of her other six children, and as of ... the last day of the CHINS factfinding on 

October 30, 2017, she was incarcerated, and unable to meet Child’s needs.” 

Appellee’s Br. at 21. This misses Mother’s point about the need for coercive 

2 Contrary to what the trial court’s order suggests, the statute’s coercive intervention provision does not apply 

to a child’s parent. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-624 | September 13, 2018 Page 5 of 5

court intervention. DCS presented zero evidence that any care, treatment, or 

rehabilitation that Child needs was unlikely to be provided or accepted without 

the coercive intervention of the court, and it would be unreasonable for us to

infer that such intervention was necessary from the mere fact that Child was 

placed in foster care for reasons not apparent in the record. Accordingly, the 

CHINS determination is clearly erroneous, and we reverse and remand for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[5] Reversed and remanded.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.