Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 1 of 7

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Special Assistant to the

State Public Defender

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re: B.W. (Minor Child), 

Child in Need of Services,

J.W. (Father),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

March 14, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

52A02-1610-JC-2323

Appeal from the Miami Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Timothy P. Spahr, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

52C01-1606-JC-64

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 2 of 7

[1] J.W. (Father) appeals the order declaring his son, B.W. (Child) to be a Child in 

Need of Services (CHINS). Father contends that the evidence is insufficient to 

support the CHINS adjudication. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Child was born in July 2002. In April 2015, Child was the subject of a CHINS 

proceeding that was resolved with the establishment of a guardianship with his 

aunt and uncle (Guardians). A requirement of the guardianship was that Child 

was to live with Guardians. Father was permitted to exercise reasonable 

parenting time. To regain custody of Child, Father was required to complete 

certain services and requirements. He never did so, and the guardianship 

remained in effect at the time of the current CHINS factfinding hearing.

[3] In June 2015, Child’s mother died. In July 2015, Child’s Guardians separated 

and Aunt moved to Missouri. Child stayed with Father and paternal relatives

in Indiana for the summer and early fall and moved to Missouri in October

2015 after the paternal relatives “had problems with” Child. Appellant’s Br. p. 

6. Child attended approximately one week of school in Missouri before getting 

expelled for fighting. After the expulsion, he remained in Missouri for nearly 

three months. He was not in school during that time. 

[4] In December 2015, Child returned to Indiana to live with Father and his 

girlfriend, but they did not enroll him in school. Between that time and June 

2016, Child bounced around between different caregivers, including: Father in 

Indiana; Father and his girlfriend in Indiana; Father, his girlfriend, and Aunt in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 3 of 7

Missouri; and Father’s girlfriend and her relatives. Child was not enrolled in 

school during this time. Father later testified that he attempted to enroll Child 

in school in Indiana but that the principal would not let Child enroll because of 

the previous expulsion. Father also stated that he began to research the 

possibility of Child enrolling in an online school, but he went to jail in March 

2016 on an unrelated criminal matter,1 which derailed the process.

[5] On June 14, 2016, the Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report 

regarding Child. During its investigation, DCS learned that Child had been at 

the home of paternal relatives (with Father’s permission) when law enforcement 

learned that there was a methamphetamine lab in the home. Child was taken 

to the hospital, where he tested positive for methamphetamine and THC. Child 

admitted to the Family Case Manager (FCM) that he had used both drugs.

[6] On June 15, 2016, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS, based 

both on the drug use and Child’s extended absence from school. DCS removed 

Child from Father’s care and custody and placed him at the Youth Opportunity 

Center (YOC), a residential treatment facility. On July 9, 2016, Child ran away 

from YOC, and he was still on the run at the time of the factfinding hearing. 

Child was with his half-brother and reached out to Father to ask for money; he 

called Father three or four times while on the run. Father did not cooperate 

 

1 The record does not reveal the nature of the unrelated criminal matter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 4 of 7

with DCS’s attempts to find Child, failing to inform DCS that Child had 

reported that he was with a family friend in North Carolina.

[7] At some point between the filing of the CHINS petition and the factfinding 

hearing, Father asked the FCM to refer him for individual therapy. She did so, 

but Father did not follow through and has not participated in that service. 

[8] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on August 10, 2016, and on August 

28, 2016, the trial court entered its order finding Child to be a CHINS. A 

dispositional order was entered on September 22, 2016, ordering Father, Child, 

and Guardians to participate in services. Father now appeals.2

Discussion and Decision

[9] Father contends that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s 

CHINS finding. 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.” In re N.R., 919 N.E.2d 

102, 105 (Ind. 2010). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge 

the credibility of the witnesses. Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of 

Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992). We consider 

only the evidence that supports the trial court’s decision and 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We reverse only 

 

2 Child’s Guardians are parties to the CHINS case, but are not participating in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 5 of 7

upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly 

erroneous. Id.

There are three elements DCS must prove for a juvenile court to 

adjudicate a child a CHINS. DCS must first prove the child is 

under the age of eighteen; DCS must prove one of eleven 

different statutory circumstances exist that would make the child 

a CHINS; and finally, in all cases, DCS must prove the child 

needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he or she is not 

receiving and that he or she is unlikely to be provided or accepted 

without the coercive intervention of the court. In re N.E., 919 

N.E.2d at 105.

In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253–54 (Ind. 2012) (footnote omitted).

[10] Here, DCS alleged that the child was CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 

31-34-1-1, which provides as follows:

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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 6 of 7

[11] Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to require “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 1283,

1287 (Ind. 2014).

[12] The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that between the time of Child’s 

expulsion in September 2015 and the filing of the CHINS petition in June 2016, 

he was not enrolled in school, be it a brick and mortar school, an online school, 

or a home schooling program. In other words, he attended only one week of 

school during the 2015-16 school year. Also during those months, Child was 

bounced between multiple residences and multiple caregivers in multiple states. 

And in June 2016, Child admitted to using methamphetamine and THC after 

testing positive for both substances.

[13] These undisputed facts, alone, readily support the trial court’s conclusion that 

Child’s physical or mental condition was seriously endangered as a result of the 

inability, refusal, or neglect of Father and Guardians to supply Child with 

necessary education and supervision. Moreover, Child clearly needs care and 

treatment that he is not currently receiving. Finally, given that Father and 

Guardians had had approximately nine months to solve Child’s educational 

situation (or to ask for help) and had failed to do so, that Father had requested a 

referral for therapy but failed to engage with that service provider, and that 

Father had failed to cooperate with DCS after Child absconded from his 

placement at YOC, the evidence likewise establishes that the care and treatment 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A02-1610-JC-2323 | March 14, 2017 Page 7 of 7

that Child needs will not be provided or accepted without the coercive 

intervention of the court.

[14] Father raises the following arguments in response to the CHINS finding: 

(1) Child was expelled because of his own choices, not because of Father’s 

neglect; (2) Father attempted to enroll Child in school in Indiana but the 

principal would not permit the enrollment because of the past expulsion, so 

Father began researching online schooling opportunities but was interrupted 

when he was arrested and incarcerated; (3) Aunt attempted to enroll Child in 

summer school but he refused to go; and (4) Father was not aware of Child’s 

drug use or of the presence of drugs in the home of the paternal relatives. The 

second and fourth arguments are mere requests that we reweigh evidence and 

reassess witness credibility—a request we decline. The first argument is an 

attempt to shift blame to Child, which is not only inappropriate but also 

evidences the underlying problem. Finally, the third argument—that Child 

refused to go to summer school and his Guardian was unable to make him go—

supports the CHINS finding. This family needs help to manage and treat

Child’s behavior, and the CHINS adjudication and services that go along with 

it will provide them the assistance they sorely need.

[15] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.