Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 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, T.L.

Don R. Hostetler

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT, J.L.

Danielle L. Gregory

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re the Matter of: 

J.L. and Jo.L.,

Children in Need of Services;

T.L. (Father) and J.L. (Mother),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Plaintiff

and 

February 28, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JC-1843

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn Moores, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

49D09-1711-JC-3663

49D09-1711-JC-3664
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 2 of 9

Child Advocates, Inc.

Appellee-Guardian ad Litem

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] J.L. (“Mother”) and T.L. (“Father”) each appeal the trial court’s order 

adjudicating J.L. and Jo.L. to be Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). 

Both parents argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the 

adjudication. Concluding that the Indiana Department of Child Services 

(“DCS”) presented sufficient evidence to support the CHINS adjudication, we 

affirm the trial court.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS 

adjudication.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 3 of 9

Facts

[1] The evidence most favorable to the CHINS adjudication reveals that Mother 

and Father are the parents of two daughters, J.L., who was born in April 2008,

and Jo.L., who was born in September 2013. In December 2014, Father 

dragged Mother down the stairs, choked her, and repeatedly pushed her against

the floor and the wall. In April 2015, Mother admitted that her daughters were 

CHINS because the family needed assistance in providing the children with a 

home free from domestic violence, and Father waived his right to a factfinding

hearing. Thereafter, the trial court adjudicated both children to be CHINS. 

Mother completed domestic violence services and home-based therapy. 

Although Father completed no services, the “case was closed successfully in 

January of 2016.” (Tr. at 110). At the time, Guardian Ad Litem Jill EnglishCheatham was concerned that Father had not addressed the initial reason for 

the children’s removal.

[2] In October 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers were 

dispatched to Mother and Father’s residence for a disturbance that involved 

Mother, Father, Mother’s parents, (“Maternal Grandmother” and “Maternal 

Grandfather”), and Mother’s brother (“Uncle”). Specifically, Mother had 

telephoned Maternal Grandmother, who had heard Mother and Father arguing 

before the phone went dead. Maternal Grandmother, Maternal Grandfather, 

and Uncle drove to Mother’s home to check on her and the children. When 

they arrived at Mother’s home, Mother’s family heard Mother yelling, “get off 

of me.” (Tr. 72). When the family went to the front door, Father opened it, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 4 of 9

told the family that they were not welcome there, and grabbed Maternal 

Grandmother’s arm. J.L., who was standing behind Father, told him to let go 

of her grandmother’s arm.

[3] Maternal Grandmother entered the home and was attempting to calm down 

J.L, when Mother came downstairs. Mother appeared dazed and her lips were 

discolored. Maternal Grandfather called the police, and Maternal 

Grandmother suggested removing the children from the house. Father 

responded that no one was taking his children and held his hand on J.L. to 

prevent her from leaving. Uncle placed himself between Father and J.L. so that 

she could leave the house, and Father swung his arm at Uncle.

[4] When police officers arrived at the scene, Mother told one of the officers that 

Father had placed her in a bear hug, held her down, and squeezed her. J.L. and 

Jo.L. had witnessed the incident and were crying. Mother was also crying and 

told the patrolman that she was did not want Father to go to jail because she 

did not want DCS to remove her children. 

[5] The children were removed from the home, and Father was charged with three 

counts of Level 6 felony domestic battery.

1

 DCS filed a petition alleging that 

J.L. and Jo.L. were CHINS because Mother and Father had failed to provide 

their daughters with a “safe, stable, and appropriate living environment free 

from domestic violence.” (Mother’s App. at 42). The petition further alleged 

 

1 The State subsequently dismissed the three charges.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 5 of 9

that Mother and Father had “an extensive history of domestic violence, and 

they were recently involved in a physical altercation in October 2017 in the 

presence of the children.” (Mother’s App. at 42).

[6] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on the CHINS petition (“CHINS 

hearing”) in February 2018. The testimony at the hearing revealed that DCS 

Family Case Manager Emma Derheimer had initially been assigned to the case. 

However, shortly thereafter she had asked to be removed from the case because 

she felt that Father was aggressive and intimidating when she attempted to 

speak with him. DCS Family Case Manager Victor Benavides was assigned to 

the case in December 2017. He testified that he had recommended that both 

parents participate in domestic violence services. However, both parents 

refused his recommendation. Father testified that he had refused services 

because he had not touched his wife. According to Father, he was not “going 

to take something for something that [he] didn’t do.” (Tr. at 215). Mother 

denied that Father had ever been physically violent with her.

[7] Following the factfinding hearing, the trial court issued an order that provides 

in, relevant part, as follows:

39. [J.L.] and [Jo.L.] are children in need of services because 

their parents’ continued domestic violence in their 

presence seriously endangers both their physical and 

mental conditions and the children need care and 

treatment which the children are not receiving and are 

unlikely to be provided without the coercive intervention 

of the Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 6 of 9

(App. 158).

[8] Mother and Father each appeal the trial court’s adjudication that their 

daughters are CHINS. 

Decision

[9] Both parents argue 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. 

[10] 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 in the evidence to 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. 

[11] We further note that, as a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and 

deference to trial courts in family law matters. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 

980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “This deference recognizes a trial court’s unique 

ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 7 of 9

testimony, as opposed to this court’s only being able to review a cold transcript 

of the record.” Id.

[12] As a preliminary matter, we note that neither parent challenges the trial court’s 

findings. As a result, they have waived any argument relating to whether these 

unchallenged findings are clearly erroneous. See McMaster v. McMaster, 681 

N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (explaining that unchallenged trial court 

findings are accepted as true). We now turn to the substantive issue in this 

case.

[13] 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.

[14] A CHINS adjudication 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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 8 of 9

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

punish the parent. Id. at 106. A CHINS adjudication in no way challenges the 

general competency of parents to continue relationships with their children. Id.

at 105.

[15] We further note that it is well-settled that a child’s exposure to domestic 

violence can support a CHINS adjudication. In re D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 984 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Additionally, a single incident of domestic violence in a 

child’s presence may support a CHINS finding. Id. 

[16] Here, both parents argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the 

CHINS adjudication. Specifically, they contend that no domestic violence 

occurred. They further contend that even if Father hit Mother, there is no 

evidence that the assault occurred in the children’s presence. However, our 

review of the testimony at the factfinding hearing reveals that Mother and 

Father have a history of domestic violence, and that one instance led to a 

CHINS adjudication in 2015. In addition, the evidence at the hearing also 

reveals that, in October 2017, Father physically assaulted Mother in the 

presence of the children, which resulted in this CHINS adjudication. Parents’ 

arguments that no domestic violence occurred is an invitation for us to reweigh 

the evidence and reassess witness credibility. This we cannot and will not do. 

In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d a 1286. There is sufficient evidence to support the CHINS 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1843 | February 28, 2019 Page 9 of 9

determination.2 The decision of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. See In re

K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012).

[17] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur. 

 

2

Father’s reliance on In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014), is also misplaced. There, the Indiana Supreme 

Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the final training that Mother needed to complete 

was unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. Id. at 1290. The 

Supreme Court further explained that where that coercion is not necessary, the State may not intrude into a 

family’s life and therefore reversed that trial court’s judgment that S.D. was a CHINS. Id. at 1291. Here, 

however, Mother and Father both refused to participate in domestic violence services. The coercive 

intervention of the court was therefore necessary.