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 APPELLANTS

Justin R. Wall 

Wall Legal Services 

Wabash, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke 

James D. Boyer 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of Al.G., As.G., 

and J.D., Jr. (Minor Children),

Children in Need of Services,

and

C.G. (Mother) and J.D. (Father),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

July 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

85A04-1602-JC-378

Appeal from the Wabash Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Robert R. 

McCallen, III, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

85C01-1511-JC-70, -71, and -72

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary

[1] C.G. (“Mother) and J.D. (“Father”) appeal the trial court’s adjudication of 

minor children Al.G., As.G., and J.D., Jr., 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 -2. Finding the evidence 

sufficient, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November 2015, the police served a search warrant where Mother and 

Father were residing with Al.G., As.G., and J.D., Jr. Al.G. was born in 

October 1999. As.G. was born in March 2009. J.D., Jr., was born in August 

2015. The parents of Al.G. and As.G. are Mother and S.G. The parents of 

J.D., Jr., are Mother and Father. The police discovered a methamphetamine 

lab, supplies used to manufacture methamphetamine, and a finished batch of 

methamphetamine. The police discovered cups containing chemicals used to 

manufacture methamphetamine that were labeled to deter the children from 

drinking from the wrong cups. While the police were there, As.G. almost took a 

sip from one of the cups that contained the chemicals. Also, an odor of 

ammonia that is associated with the manufacturing of the methamphetamine 

was detected by the police in the bathroom of the home. The police contacted

the Wabash County Department of Child Services (“DCS”) to report that they 

had found a methamphetamine lab in the presence of all three children. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 2 of 8
[3] Mother and Father submitted to oral drug screens, which came back positive 

for amphetamine/methamphetamine. DCS removed all of the children from 

the residence and took them to the hospital to undergo medical exams. All of 

the children’s health screenings came back fine except for Al.G., who tested 

positive for marijuana. DCS filed a CHINS petition for each child. DCS also 

requested that all of the children be placed in foster care. 

[4] In January 2016, a factfinding hearing was held. Based upon the evidence 

presented at the hearing, the trial court issued an order that reads in relevant 

part as follows:1

During a search of the residence numerous syringes, 

methamphetamine residue, methamphetamine precursors and 

devices used to manufacture methamphetamine were located 

throughout the house but primarily in a bathroom and on a back 

porch. The items were within easy reach of the children. 

Both Mother and Father submitted to oral drug screens which 

came back positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine. Both 

Mother and Father denied knowing anything about the existence 

of a meth lab at the residence. Mother presented unbelievable 

testimony about how she may have tested positive for 

amphetamine/methamphetamine. Beyond providing her name, 

most of her testimony was not truthful. It appears she is 

suggesting that the DCS family case manager that gave her the 

oral swab contaminated the sample during the collection process. 

That flies in the face of the evidence before the Court.

1 The order refers to the parents by name; we use Mother and Father.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 3 of 8

 
C[l]early Father and Mother knew there was an active meth lab 

at the residence where they were staying with the children. 

According to Matt Shrider of the Wabash County Drug Task 

Force, the evidence reflected that the meth, or a portion thereof, 

had recently been manufactured due to the wetness of a white 

substance located in the residence. Both Father and Mother had 

amphetamine/methamphetamine in their system while the 

children were in their care. Mother testified she only stayed at 

that residence a few days as she was between homes, however, 

she and the children were residing there, albeit briefly. Further, 

Father and Mother knowingly exposed the children to the serious 

dangers of an active or recently active meth lab. Officer Shrider 

testified to the many dangers and hazards to the occupants of a 

residence with an active or recently active meth lab.

....

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the children’s 

physical and/or mental condition is seriously impaired and 

seriously endangered as a result of Father and Mother’s inability, 

refusal and/or neglect to supply them with necessary supervision; 

that their physical and mental health is seriously endangered due 

to act or omission by Father and Mother; and, that they need 

care, treatment and/or rehabilitation that ... the parties are not 

likely to accept without the coercive intervention of the court. 

All three (3) children are Children in Need of Services pursuant 

to I.C. 34-31-1 & 2. Obviously the coercive intervention of the 

Court is necessary for Father and Mother to receive services 

given their denial of their use of amphetamine/

methamphetamine and their denial that they knowingly exposed 

the children to the serious risks of a meth lab.

Appellants’ App. at 100-01. Al.G. and As.G. were placed with S.G., and J.D.,

Jr., was placed in foster care. Mother and Father now appeal. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 4 of 8
Discussion and Decision

[5] Mother and Father contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial 

court’s CHINS adjudication. Indiana courts recognize “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 CHINS. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010); Ind. Code § 

31-34-12-3.

[6] Here the trial court adjudicated the children as CHINS pursuant to Indiana 

Code Sections 31-34-1-1 and -2. 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 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 5 of 8
To meet its burden of proving CHINS status pursuant to Indiana Code Section 

31-34-1-2, DCS must prove that the child is under eighteen and that 

(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:

(A) the child is not receiving; and

(B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive 

intervention of the court.

(b) Evidence that the illegal manufacture of a drug or controlled 

substance is occurring on property where a child resides creates a 

rebuttable presumption that the child's physical or mental health 

is seriously endangered.

[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. In re S.D., 

2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). We may not set aside the findings or 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 6 of 8
judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. In re A.C., 905 N.E.2d 456, 461 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “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. We review the 

remaining issues under the general judgement standard, and we will affirm the 

judgment if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. 

S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. 

[8] With respect to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1, Mother and Father argue that 

there is no evidence that the children’s physical or mental condition was 

seriously impaired or seriously endangered. We disagree. The children were 

exposed to a meth lab. It is clear that there was a lack of supervision by the 

parents because As.G. almost drank a cup of chemicals, and Al.G. tested 

positive for marijuana. The fact that the results from some of the children’s

hospital checkups came back clear does not mean they were not endangered. 

[9] Mother and Father also argue that there is no evidence that the children have 

needs that would not be met without coercive court intervention. Both parents 

tested positive for drugs and exposed the children to a meth lab, which 

demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a lack of respect for the law and the 

children’s safety. The parents’ denial of drug use indicates that they are 

unlikely to accept that they are incapable of providing care to the children while 

they are using drugs. Mother and Father’s argument is essentially an invitation 

for this Court to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we 

may not do. In sum, DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the trial 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 7 of 8
court’s determination that the children are CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code 

Section 31-34-1-1.

[10] With respect to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-2, Mother and Father maintain 

that there is no evidence that the children “resided” where the meth lab was 

found. We need not address this argument because the trial court found that 

the children were CHINS under both statutes. The judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 

[11] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A04-1602-JC-378 | July 15, 2016 Page 8 of 8