Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 1 of 16

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

Karen E. Wrenbeck

Monroe County Public Defender’s Office

Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine A. Cornelius

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of R.F. (a Child in 

Need of Services)

Z.F. (Father),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

November 29, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JC-1394

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

53C07-1710-JC-822

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 2 of 16

Case Summary

[1] Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings and orders, Z.F. (“Father”) 

appeals1the trial court’s order adjudicating his child, R.F. (“Child”), to be a 

Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). He raises one issue on appeal: whether 

there was sufficient evidence to support the determination that Child is a 

CHINS. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Father and Mother are the parents of Child, who was born on April 20, 2016. 

From a previous marriage to R.B., Mother also has another child, O.B., born 

March 8, 2013. Mother and R.B. had a history of committing domestic 

violence in front of O.B. and entered into an Informal Adjustment Agreement 

(“IAA”) with the Indiana Department of Child Services (“IDCS”) to address 

domestic violence issues in 2013. However, the IAA was ultimately closed 

after Mother and R.B. consistently failed to participate in services.

[4] After Child was born, she, Mother, Father, and O.B. began living together. In 

January 2017, IDCS received, assessed, and substantiated a report against 

Mother and Father for engaging in domestic violence in the presence of Child 

 

1

J.S. (“Mother”) does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 3 of 16

and O.B. In March of 2017, Father and Mother entered into an IAA under 

which Mother was to receive services and Father was ordered to “immediately 

report to the Family Case Manager any attempts by [Mother] to have access to 

or communicate with [Father].”

2

 Ex. 4 at 90. Child resided with Father, and 

Father obtained a protective order that forbade Mother to come into contact 

with Father. Father obtained sole custody of Child in July 2017. 

[5] Despite the protective order, in the summer of 2017, Father allowed Mother to 

move back into the home with Father and Child. On October 24, 2017, Mother 

and Father again engaged in domestic violence in the presence of Child. On 

October 25, 2017, IDCS filed a petition3 alleging Child and O.B. were CHINS. 

Specifically, the CHINS petition asserted that Mother and Father engaged in 

domestic violence in the presence of Child and O.B.,4thus placing the children 

in danger, and that Father “was observed by DCS to be impaired as he was 

irate, violent, and smelled of alcohol[, and h]e made homicidal and suicidal 

threats in the presence of [Child].” Verified Petition Alleging Children to be 

Children in Need of Services, Cause No. 53C07-1710-JC-822. 

 

2 Thus, Father is incorrect when he asserts that the IAA did not order him “to do anything.” Appellant’s Br. 

at 15.

3

 Neither party to this proceeding provided in the record a copy of the CHINS petition. However, we were 

able to access that document through the court’s electronic case management system, and we take judicial 

notice of that document pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 201(a). See, e.g., Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 

1154, 1161-62 (Ind. 2016). 

4

 The CHINS petition related to both Child and O.B. However, the CHINS finding as to O.B. is not at issue 

in this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 4 of 16

[6] The court conducted a fact-finding hearing on February 7, February 21, and 

March 19, 2018, at which IDCS introduced as Exhibit 8 the mental health and 

substance use evaluation of Father conducted by Cornerstone in January 2018. 

In that evaluation, Father denied ever engaging in domestic violence and said 

Mother was the only one who engaged in such violence. Father also stated 

“that he has never been violent in his entire life,” and he denied any history of 

intending to hurt others. Exhibit 8 at 125-27. 

[7] On April 17, 2018, the trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law which stated in relevant part:

Findings of Fact

* * *

5. In June, 2016, [Child] was two months old. [Mother] and

[Father] engaged in an altercation when [Father] came home 

intoxicated. [Mother] was holding [Child]. [Father] grabbed 

[Mother] so violently that her head bumped into [Child]’s. 

[Mother] almost dropped [Child]. Fortunately, the child was 

unhurt. [Mother] did not report this incident to law enforcement.

6. In October or November, 2016, [Mother] became upset 

with [Father]. [Father] had stolen [Mother]’s money to buy 

drugs. [Father] attacked [Mother]. [Mother] smashed [Father]’s 

guitar on the concrete.

7. On January 25, 2017, [Mother] threatened [Father] with a 

knife, punched him, and tried to strangle him. [Father] had a 

black eye. [O.B.] witnessed this altercation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 5 of 16

8. [Mother] was charged with Domestic Battery in the 

Presence of a Child less than l6 years old. The case is still 

pending. [Mother] admits that [O.B.] witnessed an altercation 

between herself and [Father]. However, she characterizes her

actions as self-defense. She admits that there is a history of

physical violence between the two. She believes [Father] is an 

alcoholic.

9. [Father] obtained an Order of Protection against [Mother]

on February 14, 2017. The Order prohibits [Mother] from

having contact with [Father].

10. On April 26, 2017, [Mother] violated the Protective Order 

by going to [Father]’s home in an attempt to take [Child]. 

[Father] called the police. [Mother] was arrested for Invasion of 

Privacy.

11. As a result of the altercation in the presence of [O.B.], 

[Mother] and [Father] entered into an Informal Adjustment 

Agreement with the DCS. The Informal Adjustment was 

approved by the Court on May 23, 2017.

12. On July l3, 2017, [Father] was granted sole legal and 

physical custody of [Child]. The Court noted that [Father] was 

providing [Child] with a safe and stable environment. [Mother]’s

inability to control her anger was characterized as “troubling and 

not conducive to appropriate parenting.”

13. Despite the Protective Order and Custody Order, [Father] 

allowed [Mother] to return to his home. He allowed her to live 

in the home off and on prior to October 24, 2017. Predictably, 

another altercation occurred on October 24, 2017. During the

altercation, [Mother] grabbed [Father] by the neck and scratched 

him. He was bleeding from the elbow when Sheriff’s Deputies 

arrived. When discussing the incident with DCS caseworker 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 6 of 16

Dennis Martin, [Father] began yelling. He threatened suicide.

He also threatened a Family Case Manager. [Child] was in the 

room at the time.

14. [Father] became very aggressive. He was screaming and 

incoherent. [Father] was detained by the Deputies and taken to 

Bloomington Hospital. He was admitted on a 72 hour hold for 

psychiatric evaluation. He was very belligerent to the ambulance 

staff. He smelled of alcohol.

15. [Mother] denied staying with [Father]. She stated that 

[Father] was drunk and assaulted her. She stated that [Father]

dragged her into the home where [Child] was present. [Child] 

was hitting [Father] in an attempt to get him to stop. During the 

altercation, [Mother] inadvertently kicked [Child] in the head. 

[Mother] had damage to her lip. [O.B.] was in the car when 

[Father] dragged her into the home. [Mother] stated that [O.B.]’s 

face was cut when [Father] broke a window in her vehicle. 

[Mother] had injuries to her arm and face.

16. The investigating officer made no arrests because he could 

not determine who was at fault. He did note that [O.B.] was 

visibly distraught and had glass in his hair. Based on his 

observations, the officer felt the children were in danger because 

of the actions of the parents.

l7. [Father] suffers from clinical depression. He attempted 

suicide in May, 2016.

l8. [Father] completed a psychological evaluation in January, 

2018, at Centerstone, the local mental health center. He was 

diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Use 

Disorder, Moderate. Intensive outpatient treatment (IOP) and 

individual therapy were recommended. A psychiatric assessment 

might be appropriate once he is engaged in individual therapy. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 7 of 16

The evaluator noted that he might be a good candidate for the 

SoberLink program.

* * *

21. [Father] recently pled guilty to Operating while 

Intoxicated, a Level 6 Felony.

22. [Mother] participated in individual therapy in 2017 and 

2018. The therapy did not prevent her from engaging in acts of 

domestic violence in the presence of her children.

Conclusions of Law

1. Mother has engaged in a pattern of domestic violence in 

the presence of her children. Treatment and intervention by the 

DCS has not been effective. This pattern includes the following:

* * *

i. Although [Father] knew that he and [Mother] had a 

history of domestic violence in the presence of the 

children, he allowed [Mother] to move back into his 

home. Predictably, on October 24, 2017, another 

incident of domestic violence occurred. During the 

altercation, [Mother] grabbed [Father] by the neck 

and scratched him. He was bleeding from the 

elbow. [Mother] had injuries to her arm and face. 

[Mother] stated that [Father] dragged her into his 

home while Child was present. Child was hitting 

[Father] in an attempt to get him to stop. [O.B.] 

was covered in glass when the car window was 

smashed during the altercation. [O.B.] was visibly 

distraught and had glass in his hair. The officers at 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 8 of 16

the scene felt the children were in danger because of 

the parents’ actions.

* * *

3. [Child] is only two years old. When two months old, her 

mother bumped her head and almost dropped her during an 

altercation with [Father]. In October, [Child] was hitting 

[Father] in an attempt to stop the altercation between [Father] 

and [Mother]. [Mother] accidentally kicked [Child] in the head 

during the altercation.

4. These children are being raised in an atmosphere where 

domestic violence is a regular occurrence. It is only a matter of 

time before they are injured. During the incidents of domestic 

violence, the parents utterly fail to offer appropriate care and 

supervision for their children. They are intent on engaging in 

their fights and are oblivious to the impact on the children. 

Clearly, the physical and mental condition of the children is 

seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the 

refusal and neglect of the parents to supply the children with 

necessary supervision.

5. [Mother] has engaged in ongoing individual therapy over 

the past year. This therapy has been wholly unproductive. She 

continues to engage in acts of domestic violence. She takes no

responsibility for her actions. She has signed two Informal 

Adjustment Agreements with DCS. She failed to comply with 

the first Informal Adjustment Agreement and failed to benefit 

from services offered during the second.

6. [Father] and [Mother] have a history of domestic violence 

in the presence of the children. Despite that history, [Father] 

allowed [Mother] to return to his home. This precipitated a new 

incident of domestic violence in the presence of the children. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 9 of 16

[Father] cannot be trusted to enforce the terms of the protective 

order or the custody order. He cannot ensure that the children 

will not be exposed to more domestic violence between himself 

and [Mother].

***

8. In light of the parents’ lengthy histories of domestic 

violence in front of the children, and their failure to benefit from 

services offered by DCS, it is unlikely that they will voluntarily 

participate in services designed to prevent future domestic 

violence without the coercive intervention of the Court.

9. The Department of Child Services has proven, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that [O.B.] and [Child] are 

Children in Need of Services.

App. at 8-13.

[8] On May 3, 2018, IDCS filed a Pre-Dispositional Report and addendum 

recommending services for both parents, including Father’s participation in a 

domestic violence prevention program. The trial court conducted a 

dispositional hearing on May 14, 2018, at which Father testified that IDCS had

requested that he engage in domestic violence prevention services, but that his 

therapist believed he could address domestic violence through individual 

therapy alone. Family case manager (“FCM”) Lindsey McDonald testified that 

IDCS recommended domestic battery services for both parents, but that IDCS 

intended to work with a local domestic violence service provider and Father’s 

therapist to “get a therapeutic opinion” regarding which domestic violence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 10 of 16

services were appropriate for Father. FCM McDonald stated that IDCS would

abide by that therapeutic opinion. Id. 

[9] On May 14, 2018, the trial court issued a Dispositional and Review Order in 

which it found that Child needs “a safe and stable home, free from domestic 

violence and neglect,” and ordered Child to remain in placement with the 

paternal grandparents pending further proceedings. App. at 14. This appeal 

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[10] The juvenile court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code 

Section 31-34-1-1, which 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 11 of 16

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

intervention of the court.

[11] In reviewing a CHINS determination, we do not reweigh evidence or assess 

witness credibility but consider only the evidence in favor of the juvenile court’s 

judgment, along with any reasonable inferences arising therefrom. J.M. v. Ind. 

Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re N.C.), 72 N.E.3d 519, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). When 

the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law sua sponte, we apply 

a two-tiered standard of review to the issues covered by the findings: we 

consider, first, whether the evidence supports the findings and, second, whether 

the findings support the judgment. Ind. Trial Rule 52(A); In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 

1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). 

[12] However, “we review the 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.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Under the general judgment standard 

of review, the reviewing court “may look both to other findings and beyond the 

findings to the evidence of record to determine if the result is against the facts 

and circumstances before the court.” C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In deference to the trial court’s proximity to the 

issues, an appellate court will “disturb the judgment only where there is no 

evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment.” 

In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283, 287-288 (Ind. 2002) (quotations and 

citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 12 of 16

Sufficiency of Evidence that Child is a CHINS

[13] A CHINS adjudication under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 requires three 

basic elements: “that the parent’s actions or inactions have seriously 

endangered the child, that the child’s needs are unmet, and (perhaps most 

critically) that those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.” In re 

S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. That final element “guards against unwarranted State 

interference in family life, reserving that intrusion for families where parents 

lack the ability to provide for their children, not merely where they encounter 

difficulty in meeting a child’s needs.” Id. (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

[14] Courts should consider the family’s condition not only at the time the CHINS 

case was filed, but also when the case is heard at the fact-finding hearing. Gr.J. 

v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re D.J.), 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017); see also, 

E.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re Des.B.), 2 N.E.3d 828, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (“A CHINS adjudication may not 

be based solely on conditions that no longer exist, but the court should consider 

the family’s situation at the time the case is heard by the court.”). IDCS has the 

burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is a

CHINS. See, e.g., J.J. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re K.S.), 78 N.E.3d 740, 744 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2017). IDCS may not simply rely upon allegations; rather, it 

must gather the facts and the evidence to support its CHINS petition. D.B. v. 

Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re D.B.), 43 N.E.3d 599, 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 13 of 16

[15] Here, the trial court based its CHINS determination on the parents’ repeated 

episodes of domestic violence in the presence of Child.

5

 And there was 

abundant evidence in the record that Father’s and Mother’s violent fights in the 

presence of Child endangered her both physically and emotionally. When 

Child was only two months old, Father grabbed Mother so hard that her head 

struck Child and she almost dropped Child. And right before the CHINS 

petition was filed, the parents’ violent fighting caused Mother to accidentally 

kick Child and Child to hit Father in an attempt to make him stop fighting. 

Moreover, there was evidence that neither Father nor Mother had any 

compunction about physically assaulting each other in the presence of Child’s 

half-sibling, O.B. O.B. witnessed repeated instances of domestic violence,

causing him to be afraid. In the most recent instance, a car window was 

shattered due to the parents’ physical altercation, and it caused glass to fall

down onto O.B. while he was sitting in the car. All of that evidence supports 

the trial court’s findings that Father and Mother engaged in repeated instances 

of domestic violence in the presence of Child and her half-sibling and, in doing 

so, seriously endangered Child.6

 

5

 Although the CHINS petition referenced Father’s alcohol use and mental health in addition to the 

domestic violence, the trial court only based its CHINS decision on the domestic violence in the presence of 

Child. App. at 12-13, Conclusions 4-8. Therefore, we do not address issues of substance use or mental 

health.

6

 Furthermore, we note that the “CHINS statute does not require the juvenile court and the DCS to wait 

until a child is physically or emotionally harmed to intervene.” M.W.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re K.B.), 

24 N.E.3d 997, 1003-04 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Rather, IDCS must only show that the parents’ actions 

seriously endanger the child. I.C. § 31-34-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 14 of 16

[16] And those findings support the trial court’s conclusion that “[d]uring the 

incidents of domestic violence, the parents utterly fail to offer appropriate care 

and supervision of their children.” App. at 12. Instead, the parents’ repeated 

acts of violence against each other put the children’s physical and emotional 

safety at great risk. The findings also support the trial court’s conclusion that 

the domestic violence in the presence of the children was unlikely to end 

without the coercive intervention of the court. Father knew that he and Mother 

had a history of committing violence against each other in the presence of 

Child, yet he allowed Mother to return to his home even when a protective 

order was in place, leading to more violence in Child’s presence. The trial court 

did not err in concluding that “[Father] cannot be trusted to enforce the terms of 

the protective order or the custody order[,]” nor can he “ensure that the 

children will not be exposed to more domestic violence between himself and 

[Mother].” Id. at 13.

[17] Father contends that IDCS failed to establish that the condition of domestic 

violence had not been remedied at the time of the fact-finding hearing. We 

disagree. Even “a single incident of domestic violence in a child’s presence 

may support a CHINS finding, and it need not necessarily be repetitive.” M.P. 

v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (Matter of D.P.), 72 N.E.3d 976, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2017). But here there was evidence of a pattern of domestic violence in the 

presence of Child and her half-sibling. Such a pattern may support a CHINS 

finding, even if there have been no further reports of domestic violence at the 

time of the fact-finding hearing. M.W.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Serv. (In re K.B.), 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 15 of 16

24 N.E.3d 997, 1003-04 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (noting that, although there were 

no further reported cases of violence when the trial court issued its CHINS 

finding, that “by no means proves that ... the domestic violence problems had 

been solved”). Here, while Father does have a protective order in place, the 

evidence established that he has shown a willingness in the past to ignore the 

requirements of such an order and to ignore the Informal Adjustment 

requirement that he immediately inform IDCS if Mother attempted to contact 

him. Father has also exhibited an unwillingness to take responsibility for his 

part in the domestic violence, insisting at the Cornerstone evaluation that he 

had “never been violent in his entire life.” Ex. 8 at 125. Further, at the time of 

the fact-finding hearing, Father had not yet attended domestic violence 

prevention services. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the fact that no further 

domestic violence had taken place in front of the children at the time of the 

CHINS hearing was only due to the fact that the children had been removed 

from Mother’s and Father’s care. 

Conclusion

[18] The evidence supported the finding that Child was a CHINS. Specifically, the 

evidence of the parents’ pattern of engaging in domestic violence in the 

presence of Child (and her half-sibling), leading to physical and/or emotional 

injury to Child, and Father’s unwillingness to enforce a protective order against 

Mother, supported the conclusions that Father’s actions endangered Child and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1394 | November 29, 2018 Page 16 of 16

that her need for supervision and care were not being met and were unlikely to 

be met in the future without the coercive intervention of the court. 

[19] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.