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

Valerie K. Boots

Marion County Public Defender Agency 

– Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

Lisa M. Johnson

Brownsburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILD SERVICES

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances Barrow

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Matter of G.E.T., N.T., 

and G.T.T. (Minor Children),

R.T. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner,

and

March 23, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JC-2521

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Mark A. Jones, 

Judge

The Honorable Diana Burleson, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause Nos.

49D15-1902-JC-519

49D15-1902-JC-520

49D15-1902-JC-521
Child Advocates, Inc.,1

Appellee-Guardian ad Litem.

Mathias, Judge.

[1] R.T. (“Mother”) appeals the Marion Superior Court’s order adjudicating her

three minor children as children in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother argues

that the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to present sufficient

evidence to support the adjudication.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother and Father have three minor children, seven-year-old G.E.T., six-yearold N.T., and three-year-old G.T.T. The two youngest children have special

needs.

[4] In November 2018, Father threw a pop bottle at Mother, grabbed her from

behind, and put her in a choke hold while the children were nearby. In a

separate incident, Father tried to run Mother off the road with his vehicle. DCS

received a report alleging abuse and neglect. DCS had trouble establishing

contact with Mother and filed two motions to compel before Mother

1 DeDe Connor filed an appearance on behalf of Child Advocates, Inc., but did not file a brief. 
cooperated with the investigation. Father also refused to cooperate. Father has 

an extensive criminal history involving violent acts. DCS received a second 

report alleging neglect as a result of domestic violence in the home in January 

2019. Mother obtained a protective order against Father in January 2019. She 

also sought assistance from the Julian Center. Tr. p. 30.

[5] On February 22, 2019, DCS filed a petition alleging that the children were 

CHINS. Neither Mother nor Father appeared at the initial hearing. The trial 

court ordered the children removed from Mother’s and Father’s care. Later that 

day, the DCS family case manager removed the two youngest children from 

their daycare, and then proceeded to G.E.T.’s school. Mother tried to break in 

the family case manager’s vehicle while it was parked at G.E.T.’s school. She 

yelled and screamed at the case manager. The case manager called 911 for 

assistance because Mother’s behavior was extremely combative. 

[6] The children were initially placed in emergency foster care. Five days later, they 

were placed in relative care with their paternal grandmother. At the detention 

hearing held on March 8, 2019, the trial court ordered the children placed in a 

trial home visit with Mother. The trial court ordered Father to participate in 

supervised visitation.

[7] After the children had been removed from Mother’s care, but before the March 

detention hearing, Mother met with the family case manager on February 26, 

2019 and discussed the recent death of her mother and her relationship with 

Father. She also told the case manager that she was working with the Julian 
Center, which was assisting Mother with filing for divorce and obtaining a 

protective order against Father. 

[8] DCS services providers have observed Father trying to speak to Mother and 

describe him as “badgering” her. Tr. p. 69. Father acts belligerent and 

aggressive. He refused to participate in services. Father also asked DCS service 

providers if it was possible for Mother to have the protective order dismissed.

[9] At the May 31, 2019 fact-finding hearing, Mother gave contradictory testimony 

concerning her interactions with DCS service providers and whether she was 

asked to participate in certain services. Concerning her relationship with Father, 

Mother stated she obtained the protective order against Father because she 

“wanted personal space.” Tr. p. 16. Mother did not agree that domestic 

violence services were necessary and stated that she did not have time to 

participate in services. Mother believes her relationship with Father is 

unhealthy but not unsafe. Mother was also noticeably pregnant with Father’s 

child. 

[10] At the hearing, the DCS family case manager testified that the CHINS petition 

was filed because of “multiple previous reports of domestic violence regarding 

DCS, the multiple police runs, the criminal history and the fact that . . . we had 

[to] file a motion in order to get mom to cooperate and that we had thought the 

children were not safe.” Tr. p. 32. The home-based therapist testified that 

Mother minimalized Father’s violent behavior and she did not understand 

DCS’s involvement with her children. Mother did not believe that the violence 
between herself and Father had any impact on the children. Tr. pp. 46–47. The 

home-based therapist discussed treatment goals with Mother including 

developing an understanding of unhealthy relationships, managing stress, and 

“working on grief and loss.” Tr. p. 49. 

[11] Mother did not make any progress with her treatment goals and repeatedly 

cancelled appointments with the home-based therapist. Mother also failed to 

complete the domestic violence assessment recommended by the home-based 

therapist who feared for the “safety of the children.” Tr. p. 54. She testified that 

“if [M]om does not understand fully that [Dad’s] behavior can be dangerous 

and that that can be dangerous to the children that it’s going to put her in a 

position to have difficulty protecting the children.” Id. Family case manager 

Brittany Montgomery testified that her current concerns for the children include 

that the parents do not understand the severe effect that domestic violence has 

on the children. Tr. p. 68. The DCS case managers and service providers also 

all expressed concern that Mother and Father were not abiding by the terms of 

the no-contact order. But the services providers also agreed that Mother’s 

interactions with the children and her home are appropriate.

[12] On September 27, 2019, the trial court concluded that the children are CHINS 

because the parents are not able to provide the children with an environment 

free from domestic violence. The court found:

[Mother] has admitted that her relationship with [Father] is 

unhealthy yet she has continued to have contact with [Father]; 

[Mother] minimizes the effect of conflict and violence on the 
children; and [Mother] has said that she will not or does not have 

time to participate in services and will not unless they are court 

ordered. [Father] does not understand how his behavior causes 

[Mother] and the children to be in danger. The parents have 

shown a pattern of violent behavior from November 2018. The 

children have been present when the police have been called on 

at least 2 occasions – in November 2018 when [Father] threw a 

pop bottle at [Mother], and in February 2019 when the FCM was 

removing the children from school. The parents need behavior 

modification and education regarding domestic violence that 

they will not receive without coercive intervention of the Court.

Appellant’s App. p. 162. 

[13] The court issued the parental participation order on September 27, 2019 and 

ordered the children to continue in their temporary in-home trial visit in 

Mother’s home. Mother was ordered to participate in home-based case 

management and home-based therapy with a domestic violence component. 

Mother now appeals the CHINS adjudication. Father does not appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Our Supreme Court has explained the nature of a CHINS proceeding and 

appellate review of a CHINS finding as follows:

A CHINS proceeding is a civil action; thus, the State must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as 

defined by the juvenile code. We neither reweigh the evidence 

nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. We consider only the 

evidence that supports the trial court’s decision and reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom. We reverse only upon a showing 

that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. 
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012) (quotations and citations omitted) 

(footnote and internal header omitted). 

[15] Moreover, when a trial court supplements a CHINS judgment with findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. First, we 

consider “whether the evidence supports the findings” and, second, “whether 

the findings support the judgment.” In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep’t Child Servs., 68 

N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). A CHINS determination will only be reversed if it 

was clearly erroneous. Id. “A decision is clearly erroneous if the record facts do 

not support the findings or ‘if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly 

found facts.’” Id. (citation omitted).

[16] To meet its burden of establishing CHINS status, DCS must prove that the 

child is under age eighteen,

(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; 

(A) when the parent, guardian, or custodian is financially 

able to do so; or

(B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent, 

guardian, or custodian to seek financial or other 

reasonable means to do so; 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.

Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1. 

[17] Although the acts or omissions of one or both parents can cause a condition 

that creates the need for court intervention, the CHINS designation focuses on 

the condition of the children rather than on an act or omission of the parent(s). 

In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). In other words, despite a “certain 

implication of parental fault in many CHINS adjudications, the truth of the 

matter is that a CHINS adjudication is simply that – a determination that a 

child is in need of services.” Id. (citations omitted). Furthermore, “when 

determining CHINS status under Section 31-34-1-1, particularly the ‘coercive 

intervention’ element, courts ‘should consider the family’s condition not just 

when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580

(quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290 (2014) (citation omitted)). “Doing so 

avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected 

them.” Id. at 581.

[18] DCS alleged that the children were CHINS because Mother and Father failed 

to provide them “with a safe, stable, and appropriate living environment free 

from domestic violence.” Appellant’s App. p. 44. It is well established that a 

child’s exposure to domestic violence is serious and traumatic and can support 

a CHINS finding. E.g., In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106; see also In re E.M., 4 

N.E.3d 636, 644–45 (Ind. 2014) (“A lack of beatings therefore does not equate 

to a lack of abuse, nor does the children's tender age equate to a lack of harm. 
Infants as young as fifteen months exhibit behavioral disturbances from spousal 

violence,” including symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.)

[19] In this case, Mother and Father have not lived together since July 2018. But 

Mother is pregnant with Father’s child. In January 2019, Mother sought 

assistance from the Julian Center and obtained a protective order against 

Father.2 Mother stated that she intended to divorce Father, but she did not have 

money to pay the filing fee. She testified that she filed a motion requesting 

waiver of the filing fee. Tr. p. 90. 

[20] The DCS service providers agreed that Mother’s home is appropriate and the 

children are safe with her. The children were returned to Mother’s care on 

March 8, 2019, for a temporary trial home visit, and they have remained in her 

care since that date.

[21] DCS proved that Mother had alleged two separate incidents of domestic 

violence. Both occurred before Mother obtained the protective order in January 

2019 and before the children were removed in February 2019. There were no 

reports of domestic violence after Mother obtained the protective order. DCS 

proved that Mother and Father had contact in violation of the protective order. 

However, the only known interaction between them occurred outside the 

courtroom while Mother and Father were waiting for court hearings to begin. 

2

It is possible that the child was conceived before Mother obtained the protective order, but the record does 

not conclusively establish Mother’s due date. She was visibly pregnant in June 2019.
Tr. p. 53. They were observed sitting together and arguing before the court 

hearings. The DCS case worker described Father “badgering” Mother and 

reported that Mother was trying to get away from him. Tr. pp. 69–70. On one 

occasion, Mother and Father walked out of the courtroom’s waiting area 

together. Tr. p. 53. Mother admitted that she and Father have an “unhealthy 

relationship.” Tr. p. 44. But she does not characterize their relationship as 

abusive. Tr. p. 47.

[22] The home-based therapist could not recommend case closure because

if the case closes today, this family will not receive any domestic 

violence treatment or assistance. I think there is a need for the 

domestic violence treatment for the safety of the children. I think 

if mom does not understand fully that [Father’s] behavior can be 

dangerous and that that can be dangerous to the children that it’s 

going to put her in a position to have difficulty protecting the 

children. I don’t think based on the conversation that I’ve had 

with mom that mom feels dad is a threat and is dangerous or is of 

concern even with conversations today.

Tr. p. 54. The therapist also testified that children can be affected by domestic 

violence even if they are not present when it occurs. Tr. p. 58 (“[w]hen there is 

violence and parent’s behaviors are impacted by that emotionally, then a child’s 

behavior is impacted by that”). She stated that Mother’s children have been 

affected because “the older child does get caught up in between mom and dad’s 

arguments and is used in between to gain information regarding mom. That’s 

what’s been reported.” Id. The family case manager shared the same concerns. 

Tr. pp. 67-69.
[23] Because it was not court-ordered, Mother did not follow DCS’s 

recommendation to participate in a domestic violence assessment. And the 

family case manager was concerned that the pattern of domestic violence would 

continue in Mother’s home. Tr. p. 70. Mother also failed to participate in 

therapy with the home-based family therapist. Tr. p. 49. The case manager 

expressed concerned that Father is still involved in Mother’s life. Tr. p. 73.

[24] Mother refuses to admit that Father is abusive. Aside from obtaining a 

protective order, she has not taken steps to address the issue of domestic 

violence. DCS has observed Mother violating the protective order by sitting 

with Father while waiting for courtroom proceedings to begin. DCS proved by 

a preponderance of the evidence that Mother has not acknowledged or 

addressed the impact domestic violence has on herself and her children. 

Although there is evidence supporting Mother’s argument that the children are 

not in need of services, it is not our role to reweigh the evidence and the 

credibility of the witnesses. See In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253; see also Steele-Giri

v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (explaining that appellate courts grant 

latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters).

[25] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order adjudicating Mother’s 

children as CHINS.

[26] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.