Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 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

Roberta L. Renbarger

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of A.L., (Minor 

Child), Child in Need of 

Services,

and

J.H. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

September 15, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-JC-650

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Lori K. Morgan, 

Magistrate

The Honorable Charles F. Pratt, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D08-1906-JC-344

Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 2 of 16

Case Summary

[1] J.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating Mother’s minor 

child, A.L., (the “Child”), as a child in need of services (“CHINS”). We affirm.

Issue

[2] The sole issue on appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s 

CHINS adjudication.

Facts

[3] Mother and R.L. (“Father”)1 are the biological parents of the Child, who was 

born on June 26, 2015. On November 23, 2018, Mother shoplifted from the 

Glenbrook Mall in Allen County when the Child was present. When 

responding law enforcement officers arrested2 Mother for conversion and 

resisting law enforcement, they found open alcohol containers in Mother’s 

possession. The officers notified the Allen County Office of the Department of 

Child Services (“DCS”),

3 which investigated and substantiated an allegation of 

neglect, due to Mother’s commission of a crime and arrest in the Child’s 

presence. DCS placed the Child into foster care. 

1 Father, who was incarcerated during much of the pendency of this matter, is not a party to this appeal.

2 Mother was released on bond that same day.

3 Father was incarcerated at the time of Mother’s arrest, and Mother was the sole caregiver to the Child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 3 of 16

[4] On November 26, 2018, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Child was a 

CHINS. After Mother expressed her willingness to participate in services and 

DCS found inadequate grounds to support a formal CHINS petition, Mother 

and DCS entered an informal adjustment on February 4, 2019. Pursuant to the 

informal adjustment, Mother agreed to undergo psychotherapy and 

psychological testing; participate in home-based case management; and 

undertake parenting education. Mother also agreed to comply with “all legal 

consequences” stemming from her guilty plea and conviction. Tr. Vol. II pp. 

72-73. The Child was returned to Mother’s care. 

[5] On February 21, 2019, Mother pleaded guilty in the criminal court to resisting 

law enforcement and was sentenced to twenty-five community service hours

through Allen County Community Corrections (“ACCC”). On March 26, 

2019, ACCC discharged Mother for failing to attend and complete a mandatory 

orientation. The criminal court issued an arrest warrant for Mother’s 

noncompliance, and Mother was arrested on June 4, 2019. Mother arranged 

for her paternal grandmother to take custody of the Child from a daycare

facility; however, Mother did not provide the paternal grandmother’s address to 

DCS upon request.

[6] On June 17, 2019, DCS filed another petition alleging that the Child was a 

CHINS. DCS cited Mother’s incarceration and resulting inability to supervise 

the Child in support of its petition, which provided: “Mom is not complying 

with the [informal adjustment] agreement. Mom is currently incarcerated and 

[the C]hild’s whereabouts are unknown. Mom is refusing to give [DCS] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 4 of 16

information as to where the [C]hild currently is.” DCS’s App. Vol. II p. 3. On 

June 25, 2019, Mother admitted that she violated the terms of her community 

corrections placement. The criminal court amended Mother’s sentence; gave 

Mother credit for time served; and released Mother. On June 28, 2019, the trial 

court terminated the informal adjustment as unsuccessful. 

[7] In July 2019, the Child was placed with Mother’s grandmother, M.L.4 On 

August 17, 2019, Mother was arrested for public intoxication and disorderly 

conduct as Class B misdemeanors. Mother subsequently pleaded guilty 

pursuant to a plea agreement that contemplated a six-month suspended 

sentence. 

[8] The trial court conducted a CHINS fact-finding hearing on September 27, 2019. 

Mother testified that she has met the Child’s basic needs;

5 properly supervised 

the Child; and arranged for family supervision of the Child when Mother was 

incarcerated. When Mother was asked if she needs “further psychological 

testing and treatment[,]” she said, “No thank you no.” Tr. Vol. II p. 47.

[9] On October 2, 2019, the trial court entered an order removing the Child from 

M.L.’s care and placing the Child in foster care.

6 On December 26, 2019, the 

4 The record is unclear as to how this change in the Child’s foster placement transpired.

5 Mother receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid assistance.

6 The order provided in part as follows: (1) the Child was in placement with M.L.; (2) “[t]he [C]hild is not 

progressing well in said placement[,]”; (3) “[t]he present placement is inappropriate”; (4) “[n]o suitable and 

willing relative caretakers are available for the [C]hild’s placement”; and (5) “[t]he Court now orders the 

[C]hild placed in licensed foster care.” DCS’s App. Vol. II p. 22. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 5 of 16

trial court adjudicated the Child as a CHINS and found: “the [C]hild is A Child 

in Need of Services as defined by I.C. 31-34-1-1” and “needs care, treatment or 

rehabilitation that the [C]hild is not receiving and that is unlikely to be provided 

or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.” Mother’s App. Vol. 

II p. 19. The trial court entered its dispositional order on February 20, 2020.

7

 

Mother now appeals the CHINS adjudication.

Analysis

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[1] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the CHINS 

adjudication. CHINS proceedings are civil actions; 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.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). 

When reviewing a trial court’s CHINS determination, we do not 

reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. “Instead, we 

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

and [the] reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” When a trial 

court supplements a CHINS judgment with findings of fact and 

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

We consider, first, whether the evidence supports the findings 

and, second, whether the findings support the judgment. We will 

reverse a CHINS determination only if it was clearly erroneous. 

A decision is clearly erroneous if the record facts do not support 

7 The disposition order required Mother to: (1) participate in parenting education and supervised visitation; 

(2) undergo individual therapy; (3) submit to random drug testing; (4) complete a substance abuse 

assessment; (5) participate in supervised visitation; (6) maintain appropriate housing; (7) refrain from 

criminal activity; (8) cooperate with DCS and service providers; and (9) keep DCS apprised of changes in 

Mother’s address, employment, and within Mother’s household.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 6 of 16

the findings or if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly 

found facts. 

Gr. J. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re D.J.), 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017)

(citations, quotations, and punctuation omitted).

[2] Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 provides that a child is a CHINS if, before the 

child becomes eighteen 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. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). “Our 

Supreme Court has interpreted Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 to require ‘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.’”. Id. 

[3] The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not to punish 

parents. N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. A CHINS adjudication is not a 

determination of parental fault but, rather, is a determination that a child is in 

need of services and is unlikely to receive those services without intervention of 

the court. Id. at 105. “A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the 

child.” Id. A juvenile court need not wait until a tragedy occurs before 

adjudicating a child a CHINS. In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 7 of 16

2013). A child is a CHINS when he or she is endangered by parental action or 

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

I. Serious Impairment or Endangerment

[4] Mother argues that DCS presented “no evidence” that: (1) the Child was 

“neglected, abused or abandoned”; (2) Mother “failed to provide the [C]hild 

with the necessary food, clothing, shelter or medical care, education or 

supervision”; or (3) Mother lacked “family support to provide supervision for 

the [C]hild [when] Mother was not personally able to provide the required 

supervision . . . .” Mother’s Br. pp. 11, 12, 14.

[5] The trial court’s pertinent findings of fact are as follows:

J. There are significant concerns about the mental stability 

of [Mother] and her ability to parent the [C]hild and to

provide her with a safe, stable home environment. The 

DCS has concerns that the [C]hild’s mental and physical 

health is endangered due to [M]other’s failure to

participate in and benefit from the services that have been 

identified by the mental health professionals as essential 

services for [M]other given her mental health diagnoses.

* * * * *

L. The Court finds [M]other continues to commit 

significant thinking errors that interfere with her ability to 

supply the [C]hild with necessary food, clothing, shelter, 

medical care, education, or supervision. She has engaged 

in criminogenic activity that led to her incarceration thus

separating herself from her young child and the mother’s 

arrest in the [C]hild’s presence endangered the [C]hild’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 8 of 16

psychological well-being. . . . .The [C]hild was in 

[Mother’s] care at the time of her arrest on the outstanding 

warrant and she placed the [C]hild with a relative during 

her incarceration, yet refused to provide the DCS with the 

address where the [C]hild was residing. The diagnostic

assessment and psychological evaluation that the mother 

completed noted concerns with her expectations of the 

[C]hild’s skills and abilities. Psychotherapy was 

recommended to address coping skills and to help with 

impulse control and emotional regulation and to provide 

support in parenting. Parenting classes and home based 

services were also recommended to assist [M]other with 

the care of the [C]hild and the provision of the [C]hild’s 

needs. . . . . [Mother]’s poor decisionmaking, frequent 

incarcerations, and poor parenting interferes with her 

ability to provide the [C]hild with a safe, stable and 

appropriate home and has impacted the [C]hild 

psychologically. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 

[C]hild’s physical or mental condition is seriously 

impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the 

inability, refusal, or neglect of [Mother] to supply the 

[C]hild with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical 

care, education, or supervision.

The [C]hild is in need of a safe, stable home environment 

with proper parenting as well as counseling to assist her in 

dealing with the trauma caused by being present while her 

mother was arrested . . . . Although [Mother] has a home 

to reside in with the [C]hild, there are significant concerns 

about her unaddressed mental health diagnoses and their

impact on her parenting of the [C]hild as well as her ability 

to provide a safe home environment for the [C]hild. In 

2019, she submitted to a psychological evaluation at Park 

Center and was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality 

Disorder and with a Parent-Child Relational Problem. In

2018, she submitted to a diagnostic evaluation at Quality 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 9 of 16

Counseling and was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder with 

psychotic features and personality disorder—possible 

schizotypal. Both evaluators noted concerns with 

[M]other’s bizarre thought content and questioned how 

tied to reality she was. Both recommended parenting 

education, counseling and home based services to address 

the family’s needs. [Mother] has failed and refused to

participate in the services recommended . . . and her 

mental health needs remain unaddressed. Due to the 

[M]other’s significant mental health pathology, the mental 

health evaluators have recommended services before 

reunification of the [C]hild in order to ensure the [C]hild’s 

safety. [M]other has not participated in and/or completed 

those services.

Mother’s App. Vol. II pp. 17, 18.

[6] At the fact-finding hearing, Dr. Jason Cook, a DCS-referred service provider 

contracted through Quality Counseling & Psychological Services, testified that 

he “perform[ed] psychological . . . diagnostic assessments and testing” on 

Mother. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. Dr. Cook testified that, in describing the mall arrest

incident, Mother stated that she suspected a mall security officer intended to 

harm the Child. Dr. Cook testified: “[Mother] presents [ ] as potentially 

plausible yet [ ] had a [ ] feel of possibly [ ] potentially delusional at the same 

time[.]” Id. at 33. Dr. Cook testified further that the diagnostic assessment led 

him to “speculat[e]” as to whether Mother’s symptoms—“bizarre thought 

processes [ ] and eccentric behavior tied to it”—fit either a bipolar disorder with 

psychotic features or a possible schizotypal personality disorder[.]” Id. at 29. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 10 of 16

Dr. Cook testified that he could not determine which diagnosis would best 

address Mother’s symptoms and recommended further testing as follows:

A: [ ] I believe . . . that we needed to have further psychological

testing [that] would of [sic] included [ ] more in depth personality 

assessment[,] that she probably should be engaged in 

psychotherapy to [ ] address impulse control and emotional 

regulation, [that] she should [ ] engage in parenting classes, [ ]

and if reunification was [ ] to happen[,] in-home services during 

the process[,] complete legal consequences [ ] if any remain[,]

and that she probably needs a psychiatrist evaluation based on 

the results of the psychological testing after being completed.

* * * * *

Q: [Why did you recommend] in-home [case management] 

services if we sought reunification?

A: . . .[B]ecause . . . there’s enough [ ] bizarre content or possible 

bizarre content and it wasn’t clear how tied to reality she was and 

having . . . someone in the home to . . . watch the process and 

make sure things remain stable and appropriate seems like a good 

recommendation.

Q: . . .[A]nd would you have any concerns [ ] with [ ] what 

physical or mental well[-]being of a child in her care as a result of 

that assessment?

A: . . . I want to make certain what the diagnosis was . . . there 

are concerns and based on the diagnosis that she should receive 

appropriate treatment for those diagnoses [ ] before having 

unsupervised [ ] care of children.

Id. at 30-31.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 11 of 16

[7] Next, Tabitha Kyburz, DCS Liaison and Team Leader Supervisor of Quality 

Counseling and Psychological Services, testified that DCS referred Mother for

“psych testing[,] diagnostic evaluation[,] supervised visitation[,] casework 

services[,] parenting education[,] and individual counseling.” Id. at 37. Kyburz 

testified that Mother completed the psychological testing and diagnostic 

evaluation referrals and participated in supervised visitation; however, Mother 

started but did not complete home-based case management, parenting 

education, and cleaning and organization of the home.8

 Kyburz noted that 

Mother routinely started but failed to complete tasks. Also, regarding homebased case management, Kyburz testified that, soon after Kyburz and Mother 

cleaned and organized the bedrooms in Mother’s home, Mother and the Child 

were sleeping in the living room of the home because the bedrooms “were again 

disorganized [and] not usable.” Id. at 40. 

[8] Additionally, psychologist Sydney Young (“Psychologist Young”) of Park 

Center testified that DCS referred Mother “for diagnostic clarifications[,]

treatment recommendations[,] and [assessment of] parenting abilities.” Id. at 

62. Psychologist Young testified that: “based off the clinical interview and data 

gathered,” Mother “indicated [ ] symptoms associated with narcissistic 

personality disorder”; and “[Mother’s] judgment may impact her ability to 

8 In Mother’s testimony during the fact-finding hearing, she testified that she completed parenting education 

through a different service provider and participated in home-based case management “as far as until it was 

put on hold.” Tr. Vol. II p. 43.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 12 of 16

parent [ ] due to her expansive thought process and her very lofty goals.” Id. at 

65, 68. Psychologist Young testified further:

. . . [M]y recommendations were for [Mother] to undergo 

additional assessment or interviewing for potential [ ] substance 

use issues . . . because there were prior arrest histories for 

alcohol and substance use was denied at intake[.] * * * * * I also 

referred for in-home skills and therapy . . . in addition to

parenting classes so [Mother] could better understand her child’s 

developmental stages [and] needs.

Id.

[9] Also, DCS family case manager Natasha Jones (“FCM Jones”) testified that 

Mother failed to satisfy the requirements of the informal adjustment. FCM

Jones testified that: (1) Mother’s arrest for violating the terms of community 

corrections violated the requirement that Mother should complete all legal 

consequences related to her criminal conviction; (2) Mother refused to divulge 

the precise whereabouts of the Child to DCS after Mother’s June 2019 arrest; 

(3) Mother did not comply with the recommendations that stemmed from the 

diagnostic evaluation—namely, individual counseling and home-based case 

management with parenting instruction; and (4) Mother’s two criminal arrests 

during the pendency of the CHINS action violated the trial court’s order that 

Mother should refrain from any criminal activity. FCM Jones testified further

that DCS’s ongoing concerns related to Mother’s “mental [ ]instability and her

[ ] ability to parent”; and that the Child’s mental and physical stability are 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 13 of 16

endangered by Mother’s failure to complete all the recommendations from the 

diagnostic assessment. Id. at 74. 

[10] Our assessment of DCS’s case-in-chief is as follows. At the outset of DCS’s 

involvement, DCS pursued an informal adjustment with Mother, wherein 

Mother retained custody of the Child. The informal adjustment was terminated 

as unsuccessful, however, when Mother was arrested two times during the 

CHINS pendency and failed to follow mental health service providers’

recommendations that were vital to Mother’s reunification efforts.9

 The record 

reveals that Psychologist Young recommended that Mother undergo additional 

psychological testing. Likewise, Dr. Cook recommended further psychological 

testing to: (1) determine Mother’s precise mental health diagnosis; (2) assess 

“how tied to reality she [is]”; (3) “make sure things remain stable and 

appropriate”; and (4) because “there are concerns and based on the diagnosis

that she should receive appropriate treatment for those diagnoses [ ] before

having unsupervised [ ] care of children.” Id. at 30-31. As of the time of the 

fact-finding hearing, Mother had not submitted to the recommended

psychological testing. When counsel for DCS asked Mother, “Do you believe 

you need further psychological testing and treatment[,]” Mother replied, “No 

thank you no.” Id. at 47. 

9 Mother also failed to complete individual therapy and home-based case management services as ordered.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 14 of 16

[11] As noted above, a juvenile court need not wait until a tragedy occurs before 

adjudicating a Child a CHINS. R.S., 987 N.E.2d at 158. The record 

documents the extent to which DCS harbored concerns about Mother’s 

uncertain mental health diagnoses and untreated mental health issues. Dr. 

Cook and Psychologist Young testified regarding the need for additional 

psychological testing. Dr. Cook, in particular, testified that it is imperative to 

determine whether Mother’s irrational and grandiose thinking interferes with 

her parenting ability and to identify and treat Mother’s mental health conditions

before the Child may be restored to Mother’s unsupervised care.

[12] Given: (1) DCS’s concerns about Mother’s mental stability and ability to 

parent; (2) Mother’s failure to follow through with mental health treatment 

recommendations; and (3) Mother’s stated unwillingness to submit to 

recommended psychological testing, we see no clear error in the trial court’s 

finding that the Child’s physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or 

seriously endangered as a result of Mother’s inability, refusal, or neglect to 

supply the Child with necessary supervision. 

II. Coercive Intervention

[13] Mother also challenges the trial court’s finding that the Child’s needs will not be 

met without the coercive involvement of the court. The “coercive intervention” 

element of Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 “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.’” J.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 2 N.E.3d 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 15 of 16

1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted). When considering the coercive 

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

when the case was filed, but also when it is heard. Gr. J. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child 

Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017) (quotations omitted). “Doing so avoids 

punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them.” 

Id. at 581. “Thus, in a CHINS case, we give special consideration to a family’s 

current conditions.” Matter of A.R. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 121 N.E.3d 598, 

603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). 

[14] The trial court’s pertinent findings are as follows:

[M]other is in need of services to assist her in providing a safe, 

stable home for herself and her child and to assist her in 

addressing her untreated mental health conditions. . . . DCS has 

demonstrated that it is unlikely that the mother will accept or 

receive necessary services absent the coercive intervention of the 

Court. [Mother] was given an opportunity to participate in 

services through an Informal Adjustment . . . . The Informal 

Adjustment case was closed out unsuccessfully in June of 2019 

due to the mother’s non-compliance. In the mother’s criminal 

proceeding, she was given an opportunity to participate in 

community service as part of her sentence for her criminal 

charges, however, she failed to participate in the orientation for 

the community service program and a warrant was issued for her 

arrest. [M]other was ordered to participate in services 

provisionally in these proceedings, however, when ordered to do 

so, has failed to participate in services. [M]other has 

demonstrated a pattern of a refusal to participate in necessary 

services on a voluntary bases [sic] as well as necessary services 

when ordered to do so by a Court. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that it is unlikely that [M]other will accept or receive the 

necessary services without the coercive intervention of the court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JC-650 | September 15, 2020 Page 16 of 16

Mother’s App. Vol. II p. 19.

[15] At the fact-finding hearing, Dr. Cook and Psychologist Young testified that 

Mother needs to undergo additional psychological testing. Dr. Cook testified 

further that such testing should occur before the Child is returned to Mother’s

unsupervised care. On the witness stand, however, Mother testified that she 

does not require additional psychological testing or treatment. Additionally, 

FCM Jones testified that she recommends home-based case management and 

individual therapy that Mother has yet to complete. When Counsel for DCS 

asked FCM Jones, “[D]o you believe that [Mother] will [ ] accept those services 

without the intervention of the Court,” FCM Jones replied, “No.” Tr. Vol. II 

p. 75. 

[16] Based on the foregoing, and reasonable inferences from Mother’s 

noncompliance with the terms of the informal adjustment and her ACCC 

placement, we find no clear error from the trial court’s finding that the Child’s 

needs are unlikely to be met without the coercive involvement of the court.

Conclusion

[17] Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s CHINS adjudication. We affirm.

[18] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.