Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 1 of 9

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

Danielle L. Gregory

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Marjorie Newell

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re The Matter of S.G. (Minor 

Child);

P.G. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

March 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1610-JC-2351

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn Moores, 

Judge

The Honorable Rosanne Ang, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1601-JC-211

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 2 of 9

Statement of the Case

[1] P.G. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating S.G. (“S.G.”) to be 

a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). Mother argues that the Department of 

Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 

(1) S.G.’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously 

endangered as a result of Mother’s inability, refusal, or neglect to supply S.G. 

with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision; 

and (2) S.G. needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that she was unlikely to be 

provided without the coercive intervention of the court. Finding sufficient 

evidence to support the adjudication, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS 

adjudication.

Facts

[3] In 2015, Mother lived with her paternal grandparents and her father at the 

grandparents’ home. After running away, she was adjudicated to be a CHINS 

and court ordered to participate in a residential treatment program at Valle 

Vista Health System. In January 2016, while still in treatment, sixteen-year-old 

Mother gave birth to S.G. Mother was unable to take S.G. with her to Valle 

Vista, and her grandparents were unable to take placement of S.G. because of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 3 of 9

their history with DCS. Because no other family members were available to 

care for S.G., she was placed in foster care.

[4] Five days after S.G.’s birth, DCS filed a petition alleging that she was a 

CHINS. Specifically, the petition alleged that Mother lacked both the ability to 

provide S.G. with a safe, stable, and appropriate living environment and the 

financial means and parenting skills to provide S.G. with basic care and 

necessities. The petition further alleged that Mother was a patient at Valle Vista 

and had not successfully demonstrated an alternative plan for S.G.’s care. 

Therefore, according to the petition, the coercive intervention of the Court was 

necessary to ensure S.G.’s safety and well-being.

[5] Evidence presented at the July 2016 fact-finding hearing revealed that Mother 

had initially participated in supervised visitation with S.G. at Valle Vista. By 

the time of the hearing, however, Mother had been discharged from Valle Vista 

and was living at her grandparents’ house with her grandparents, father, and 

several other family members. Mother had never been alone with S.G. and had 

been participating in supervised parenting time with S.G. four days a week at

her grandparents’ home. At the time of the hearing, Mother was visiting with 

S.G. two hours three days a week and six to eight hours one day a week. 

Mother admitted that she had begun ending the longer visits early because she 

had “gotten tired and then like the whole situation exhausted – was exhausting . 

. . .” (Tr. 16).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 4 of 9

[6] Visitation facilitator Whitney Gaines (“Gaines”) expressed her concern that 

Mother had begun ending the visits early. For example, during one visit, 

Mother said she was tired and wanted to end the long visit four hours early so 

she could get some sleep. However, toward the end of the visit, Mother “went 

and got dressed and changed her clothes and some friends had c[o]me by so 

when [we were] leaving[,] she took baby to the vehicle and then she went 

outside to meet her friends.” (Tr. 46). Gaines also explained that Mother 

needed a child care plan since she would be returning to school. Gaines was 

concerned that grandparents had significant health issues and would not be able 

to care for the child. Grandmother was on oxygen and there were several tanks 

in the house; yet, other members of the household continued to smoke. Father 

was on house arrest and had a suspended license but continued to drive and 

was the primary provider of transportation in the household. Father’s girlfriend 

had her own open DCS case, and others who lived in the house had not yet 

completed background checks. Other safety concerns included the recent 

infestation of bedbugs in the grandparents’ home and the lack of safety items, 

such as safety gates, that had been recommended in the home. Gaines also 

wanted to be sure that Mother was “able to adjust to school in addition to 

having a child and adjust to all of the other services before placing the child 

back in the home.” (Tr. 53).

[7] DCS family case manager Kevisha Brookshire (“Brookshire”) also testified that 

she was concerned about Mother becoming distracted during the longer visits 

and ending them early. Specifically, Brookshire explained that “if [Mother is] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 5 of 9

shortening visits how do I know [she’s] ready to be a full-time parent . . . .” (Tr. 

33). Brookshire also testified that Mother needs guidance on parenting skills, 

which is a safety concern. When asked why she felt that S.G. should be 

adjudicated to be a CHINS, Brookshire explained as follows:

[Mother] would benefit from the help of DCS providing her with

ongoing services. I mean I, I believe [Mother] could be a great 

mother, but I think she needs a little bit more time to learn how 

to adjust to being a teen mom cause it’s definitely not easy and 

she’s still sixteen and a teenager and she’s still sixteen and 

want[s] to do teenager things. So, [Mother] needs a little more

time to adjust to learning on how to be a teen mom and 

balancing out being a teenager on top of balancing out how to be 

in school and I don’t know if [Mother] will be able to do that on 

her own.

(Tr. 36). 

[8] Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order, which concluded that 

S.G. was a CHINS and provided in relevant part as follows:

14. [S.G.]’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. [Mother] is a sixteen-year-old mother who has a 

history of running away from home and was recently discharged

from a residential facility. [Mother] has not been able to sustain 

more than a few hours of parenting time with her child at a time 

and is not ready to parent the child full-time.

15. [S.G] needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that she is not 

receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 6 of 9

coercive intervention of the court. This Court is not required to 

wait until a child is harmed before intervening. The condition of 

this seven-month-old-child is that she requires a consistent 

caregiver who is able to provide for all of her needs. Until 

[Mother] acquires the skills to care for herself and her child, the 

intervention of this Court is needed to ensure that [S.G.] obtains 

the care she requires.

(App. 104). Mother now appeals.

Decision

[9] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the CHINS 

adjudication. When determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support 

a CHINS determination, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the 

judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2 

N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). This Court will not reweigh the evidence or 

reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 1286. Where, as here, a juvenile 

court’s order contains specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, we 

engage in a two-tiered review. In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and 

then, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. Findings 

are clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences to be drawn 

therefrom that support them. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if the 

findings do not support the juvenile court’s conclusions or the conclusions do 

not support the resulting judgment. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 7 of 9

[10] A mother’s constitutionally protected right to raise her child is not without 

limitation. E.P. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family and Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 

1031-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). This is because the State has a compelling

interest in protecting the welfare of the child by intervening in the parent-child 

relationship when parental neglect, abuse, or abandonment is at issue. Id. at 

1032. 

[11] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 

2010). Therefore, DCS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. Id. INDIANA CODE § 31-34-

1-1 provides that a child is a CHINS 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 the 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.

[12] A CHINS designation focuses on the child’s condition rather than the parent’s 

culpability. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105. The purpose of a CHINS 

adjudication is to provide proper services for the benefit of the child, not to 

punish the parent. Id. at 106.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 8 of 9

[13] Here, Mother specifically contends that DCS failed to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that: (1) S.G.’s physical or mental condition 

was seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of [Mother’s]

inability, refusal, or neglect to supply S.G. with necessary food, clothing, 

shelter, medical care, education, or supervision; and (2) S.G. needs care, 

treatment, or rehabilitation that she was unlikely to receive without the coercive 

intervention of the court. We address each of her contentions in turn.

[14] First, our review of the evidence reveals that after sixteen-year-old Mother, who 

had previously been adjudicated to be a CHINS, was discharged from the 

residential treatment facility that she was court ordered to attend, she began 

ending her visits with her daughter early. She had never been alone with her 

daughter and had not spent more than a few hours at a time parenting her child. 

Mother lived with her paternal grandparents, her father, and other relatives, 

many of whom had not completed background checks. Both grandparents had 

health issues. Grandmother was on oxygen; yet, others in the household 

smoked in the house. Father was on house arrest, and even though his license 

had been suspended, he was the primary driver in the household. His girlfriend 

had an open case with DCS. In addition, grandparents’ home had recently 

become infested with bed bugs, and no one had provided safety items, such as 

safety gates, that had been recommended for the home. This evidence supports 

the trial court’s conclusion that S.G.’s physical or mental condition was 

seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of Mother’s inability to 

supply S.G. with the necessary supervision.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-JC-2351 | March 30, 2017 Page 9 of 9

[15] Our review of the evidence further reveals that, at the time of the fact-finding

hearing, Mother lacked the skills necessary to care for her infant daughter. 

Mother had never been alone with her daughter. In addition, she was faced 

with health and safety concerns in her grandparents’ home, such as household 

members who had not had background checks and who were smoking in the 

house around oxygen tanks and an infestation of bed bugs. Also, 

recommended safety items for S.G., such as safety gates, had not been 

purchased. This evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that sixteen-yearold Mother was simply unable to remedy these situations and provide S.G. with 

a safe environment without the coercive intervention of the court. We therefore 

find sufficient evidence to support S.G.’s adjudication as a CHINS.

[16] Affirmed.

May, J. and Brown, J., concur.