Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 1 of 10

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

Amy Karozos 

Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana 

Lauren A. Jacobsen 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re The Matter of:

My.B. and M.Q., 

Children in Need of Services

M.B. (Father), 

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

Indiana Department of Child 

Services, 

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

February 28, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JC-2159 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge 

The Honorable Rosanne Ang, 

Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 

49D09-1803-JC-714 

49D09-1803-JC-715 

Brown, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 2 of 10

[1] M.B. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order determining that M.Q. and

My.B. (the “Children”) are children in need of services (“CHINS”). Father 

raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient 

to support the court’s determination. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and K.A. (“Mother”) have two children together, M.Q. who was born in 

April 2008 and My.B. who was born in October 2009. Father and Mother were 

divorced in March 2012. The court approved an agreement that Father and 

Mother share joint legal custody of the Children, Mother have physical 

custody, and Father have parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting 

Time Guidelines. In March 2012, a CHINS action was filed after Mother’s

third child was born with THC and cocaine in her system.

1

 In July 2017, 

Mother, her children, and M.A. came to the attention of the Department of 

Child Services (“DCS”) based on a report of neglect which alleged that Mother 

and M.A. were involved in an accident with all of the children. 

[3] On March 13, 2018, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children and 

Mother’s other children were CHINS. The petition alleged that Mother failed 

to provide her children with a safe, sanitary, and appropriate living 

environment free from substance abuse; that, on March 11, 2018, family case 

1 The court’s CHINS determination order in this case indicates Mother has five children, Father is the father 

of the Children, and M.A. is the father of the other children. The children of Mother and M.A. were born in 

March 2012, May 2014, and May 2015. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 3 of 10

manager Bailey Sandlin (“FCM Sandlin”) “responded to a report due to 

[Mother] stating that the biological father was holding the children hostage in 

the attic”; that FCM Sandlin “observed the home to be in disarray with varying

stages of food decay on the floor, dirty clothes, cat food, a rusted can opener, 

and a jagged can lid in reach of the children”; and that she observed fecal 

matter smeared across the wall. It also alleged that Mother was in jail on 

charges including disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and neglect of a 

dependent; that the family has a history with DCS; that services were 

previously offered through CHINS actions; and that despite prior services 

Mother continued to demonstrate an inability to provide the children with a 

safe, drug-free home. The petition further alleged that Father and M.A. have 

not successfully demonstrated an ability and willingness to appropriately parent 

the children and are unable to ensure their safety and well-being while in the 

care of Mother. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 51. 

[4] The court held factfinding hearings in June 2018. Father testified that he did 

not feel the Children were safe in the custody of Mother. He testified that the 

last time he saw the Children was in July 2017 for two or three hours and that, 

prior to that, he had not seen the Children for about four or five years. When 

asked how long he had believed Mother was not an appropriate parent for the 

Children, Father replied “[a]bout four or five years,” and when asked to explain 

his conclusion, he answered “[w]e had certain little confrontations and stuff,” 

“we took it in our own hands to have visitation without CHINS and she got 

into [an] altercation with my sister and after that I got into an altercation with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 4 of 10

her husband,” “I was jumped and stabbed and after that stuff just started really 

going downhill and she was taking me away from the kids,” “[e]very time I call 

she was hanging up on me, putting restraining orders on me,” “I’d never even 

been to their house,” and “[s]he’s putting restraining orders on me, all kinds of 

stuff, threatening to arrest me.” Transcript Volume II at 126-127. When asked 

if he wanted the Children in his custody, he answered affirmatively. When 

asked, “[s]ince 2012 have you ever filed any official paperwork asking for 

custody,” Father answered “I did, but it never went through.” Id. On crossexamination, Father indicated that, since this CHINS case opened in March, he 

had been visiting with the Children about twice a week. A DCS assessment 

family case manager testified that she received a report in July 2017 related to a 

car accident and indicated she was not able to speak with Father, because she 

could not locate him. 

[5] On July 19, 2018, the court issued an order finding the Children were CHINS. 

The court found that, in March of 2012, a CHINS action was filed after 

Mother’s third child was born with THC and cocaine in her system. It found 

that, in July 2017, Mother, M.A., and the children came to the attention of 

DCS based on a report of neglect which alleged that Mother and M.A. were 

“involved in an automobile accident with all of the children” and that “[a]t that 

time, [Mother] admitted that [M.A.] had purchased illicit substances and that 

she smoked ‘the stick’.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 145. The court 

found that, in March 2018, Mother and the children came to the attention of 

DCS based on a report alleging Mother was suffering from paranoid delusions;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 5 of 10

that FCM Sandlin observed the condition of the home; and that, on the night of 

FCM Sandlin’s assessment, Mother appeared to be under the influence of an 

illicit substance, displayed bursts of aggressive behavior, attempted to lunge at 

FCM Sandlin and had to be restrained by law enforcement, yelled to the 

children to come downstairs and save her from the police, and repeatedly yelled 

for her children to look at her while she was handcuffed and seated on the 

ground. The court further found that, upon removal, the children’s belongings 

were extremely dirty, the children did not have matching shoes, none of their

belongings could be transported with them due to being in poor condition, and 

the children had to be wrapped in blankets. It found that, during her supervised 

parenting time, Mother was not able to properly supervise the children and that 

Mother has been recommended to engage in a parenting assessment and 

parenting education. It noted that an individual therapist identified that Mother 

has mental health and substance abuse issues and that Mother meets with the 

therapist but has not taken any action to support change. 

[6] The court found that Mother has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, has been 

prescribed but is not currently taking medication, reports difficulty sleeping, has 

suffered from manic episodes and has displayed irrational and compulsive 

behavior, and has expressed feelings of excessive worry and extreme sadness. It

found that Mother’s therapist does not believe that the children can safely 

return to her care at this time due to her substance abuse and untreated mental 

state, and that the children, have been recommended to therapy to address their 

mental health needs and negative behaviors. The court further found that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 6 of 10

Mother has recently used PCP and methamphetamine, and is employed but 

does not have sufficient income to support herself and all of the children. 

[7] The court also found: 

33. [The children’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’s] untreated substance abuse 

and mental health has resulted in her inability to provide the

children with appropriate care and supervision. [Father] has not 

maintained contact with [the Children]. [M.A.] is incarcerated and 

is unable to provide care for [his children]. 

34. [The children] need care, treatment, or rehabilitation that the 

children are not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted 

without the coercive intervention of the Court. As [Mother] has not 

voluntarily sought mental health and substance abuse treatment, the 

intervention of this Court is needed to compel her to do so. As 

[Father] has not taken any steps to maintain contact with his 

children, the intervention of the Court is needed to assist in 

developing his relationship with his children. . . . Lastly, the 

intervention of the Court is needed to ensure that the children 

receive the recommended therapy and appropriate care while their 

parents are addressing the above-stated issues. 

Id. at 147. The court subsequently issued a dispositional order granting Father 

parenting time in his home and increased parenting time upon positive 

recommendations from DCS, the guardian ad litem, and service providers. It 

issued a parental participation order requiring Father engage in a home-based 

therapy program referred by the family case manager and follow all 

recommendations. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 7 of 10

Discussion

[8] The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination 

that the Children are CHINS. Father argues that the finding that he did not 

maintain consistent contact with the Children is not supported by the record 

and that, although he was not able to exercise parenting time consistently 

before the CHINS filing, the opposite was true at the time of the factfinding 

hearing. He argues that “[c]ustody could have been decided in through the 

bundled cases” and that he “was not shown to be anything other than fit.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 15. He argues he was ready, willing, and able to care for 

the Children. In response, DCS contends that Father did not appear for the 

Children until this CHINS case was initiated, and that, because he has not 

taken the necessary steps to remedy Mother’s failure to provide for the 

Children’s needs up to this third instance of DCS involvement, despite his 

awareness of prior involvement, the court reasonably inferred that continued 

court involvement would be necessary. In reply, Father argues that Mother did 

not let him see the Children, that from the moment he was informed of the 

CHINS he did everything possible to have the Children placed with him, and 

that his lack of contact prior to the Children’s removal from Mother is not a 

sufficient basis for a CHINS finding. 

[9] In reviewing a trial court’s determination that a child is in need of services, we 

neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. In re S.D., 2 

N.E.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (Ind. 2014), reh’g denied. Instead, we consider only the 

evidence that supports the trial court’s decision and reasonable inferences 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 8 of 10

drawn therefrom. Id. at 1287. As to issues covered by findings, we apply the 

two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings and whether 

the findings support the judgment. Id. We review remaining issues under the 

general judgment standard, under which a judgment will be affirmed if it can be 

sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id. 

[10] Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 provides:

A child is a child in need of services 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 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.

The CHINS statute does not require that a court wait until a tragedy occurs to 

intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, a 

child is a CHINS when he or she is endangered by parental action or inaction. 

Id. A CHINS determination establishes the status of a child alone. In re N.E., 

919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). Because a CHINS determination regards the 

status of the child, a separate analysis as to each parent is not required in the 

CHINS determination stage. Id. The conduct of one parent can be enough for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 9 of 10

a child to be adjudicated a CHINS. Id. The purpose of a CHINS adjudication 

is to protect children, not punish parents. Id. The resolution of a juvenile 

proceeding focuses on the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or 

innocence as in a criminal proceeding. Id. 

[11] We note that Father does not challenge the trial court’s findings regarding the 

CHINS action in 2012, the accident involving Mother and the Children in 

2017, Mother’s mental health diagnosis and drug use, or the reasons for the 

Children’s removal in 2018. Further, he does not dispute the court’s findings 

regarding the condition of the home in which the Children were living, that the 

Children’s belongings could not be transported and they had to be wrapped in 

blankets at the time of removal, and that the Children have been recommended 

to therapy to address their mental health needs and negative behaviors. The 

court additionally found that Father has not maintained consistent contact with 

the Children, the most recent time he visited the Children prior to the filing of 

this CHINS action was for a few hours in July 2017, and prior to that he had 

not seen the Children in four or five years. The record reveals that testimony 

was elicited from Father at the factfinding hearings which supports these 

findings. Also, Father indicated that he has believed Mother is not an 

appropriate parent for four or five years and has felt that the Children are not 

safe with her. To the extent Father stated that he filed paperwork for custody 

but it never went through, that Mother prevented him from seeing the Children, 

or that he participated in visitation after the CHINS case was filed, we note that 

the record reflects that Mother and Father shared joint legal custody and that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2159 | February 28, 2019 Page 10 of 10

the trial court was able to consider Father’s testimony and the extent to which it 

affected whether the Children required care they were unlikely to be provided 

without the court’s intervention. 

[12] While the fact that Father did not have contact with the Children for a number 

of years may not, standing alone, render the Children CHINS, we cannot 

conclude that the court was precluded from considering this fact, together with 

the evidence regarding the care provided by Mother of which Father was aware

at least in part, in determining whether the Children were in need of care, 

treatment, or rehabilitation that they were not receiving and were unlikely to be 

provided without the coercive intervention of the court. See Ind. Code § 31-34-

1-1. The evidence related to Mother, Father, and the Children’s needs supports 

the court’s determination that the Children were in need of services and the 

coercive intervention of the court was necessary. 

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the 

Children are CHINS.

[14] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.