Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 1 of 34

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Victoria Bailey

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

Steven J. Halbert

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILD SERVICES

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Katherine A. Cornelius

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE CHILD 

ADVOCATES, INC.

DeDe K. Connor

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of A.R. and H.R., 

Children in Need of Services,

J.R., Father,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner,

August 31, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JC-475

Appeal from the

Marion Superior Court

The Honorable

Marilyn A. Moores, Judge

The Honorable 

Rosanne Ang, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1706-JC-1915

49D09-1706-JC-1916
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 2 of 34

and

Child Advocates, Inc.,

Co-Appellee (Guardian ad Litem).

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] J.R. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order adjudicating two of his 

children, A.R. and H.R., to be children in need of services (“CHINS”). Father 

raises three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as follows:

I. Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to enter a CHINS 

adjudication and disposition;

II. Whether the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) 

presented sufficient evidence that A.R. and H.R. were CHINS.

[2] We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] M.R. (“Mother”) and Father are the parents of five children, including A.R., 

born in Henderson County, North Carolina in April 2005, and H.R., born in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 3 of 34

Lafayette, Indiana in March 2012.

1

 In 2014, parents were living together and

with the children, in North Carolina. In September 2014, the North Carolina 

Department of Social Services (“NCDSS”) removed the children from the 

home and filed a juvenile petition, similar to what would be a CHINS petition

in Indiana, as to the five children, alleging unstable housing, substance abuse by 

parents, and domestic violence between parents. In March 2015, the children 

were adjudicated as abused and neglected juveniles. Pet’r’s Exs. 1, 2, 3, 4. From 

September 2014 until sometime in 2016, the children were in the care and 

control of NCDSS. 

[4] Following a May 2016 review hearing, the North Carolina juvenile court issued 

a Subsequent Permanency Planning and Review Order on July 15, 2016 (“July 

Review Order”). The July Review Order reflected testimony of social worker 

William Winters (“SW Winters”) that Mother completed her case plan and that 

Mother wanted to move to Indiana. SW Winters also testified that Father had 

multiple failed drug screens, but paid child support, visited regularly, was 

employed, and was bonded with the children. Id. The North Carolina juvenile 

court awarded custody of the five children to Mother, granted Father 

supervised visitation, to be supervised by specified maternal and paternal family 

members, and closed the CHINS proceedings. Pet’r’s Exs. 1, 2. The July 

Review Order also stated that North Carolina “retains jurisdiction in this matter 

 

1 The other three children were each born in North Carolina, in 2006, 2007, and 2010.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 4 of 34

until terminated by order of the Court” or until the children reach the age of 

majority. Id. 

[5] At or around the end of the school year in 2016, Mother left North Carolina 

with all five children. However, after a period of time, she and the children 

returned to North Carolina, where they lived in a separate residence from 

Father. At some point, three of the children moved in with Father. At the end 

of April 2017, Mother returned to Indiana with A.R. and H.R., the two 

children who were not living with Father and are the subject of the current 

CHINS case. 

[6] In May 2017, NCDSS received reports of an “injurious environment” at 

Father’s home and, in response, it filed on June 23, 2017 a Motion to Re-Open

and to Review the previously closed CHINS matter. NCDSS conducted an 

investigation of Father’s residence and his girlfriend, with whom he lives. 

Social worker Vanessa Phillips (“Phillips”) found no evidence of abuse or 

neglect, Father took and passed all drug screens, and had started attending a 

substance abuse group. Pet’r’s Ex. 3. The NCDSS asked the North Carolina 

juvenile court to approve the three children living with Father and remove the 

previously-ordered supervised visitation. Id. The Motion to Re-Open also 

reflected that NCDSS made a report to DCS, “who initiated [its] own 

investigation.” Id. 

[7] Here in Indiana, Mother was uncooperative with DCS’s investigation 

throughout May. DCS was investigating reports of housing instability and that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 5 of 34

at least some of the children missed school because Mother was out at bars and 

did not return home, Mother allowed A.R.’s fourteen-year-old boyfriend to 

sleep over and have sex with A.R., Mother had sex in front of the children in 

the same room, Mother used drugs in front of the children, and Mother left 

children with inappropriate caregivers, one of whom overdosed. Pet’r’s Ex. 3; 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 48. On June 14, 2017, police were dispatched to 

Mother’s home on reports of domestic violence, and she again was 

uncooperative and untruthful with officers. A.R. and H.R. were removed from 

Mother’s home, and on June 15, 2017, DCS filed a CHINS petition as to A.R. 

and H.R., alleging that Mother failed to provide them with a safe, stable, and 

appropriate living environment free from domestic violence and substance 

abuse and that the children were not attending school. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 

45. As to Father, the Petition alleged, “[Father] . . . has not successfully

demonstrated an ability and willingness to appropriately parent the children, 

and/or they are unable to ensure the children’s safety and well being while in 

the care and custody of [Mother] as he is in North Carolina.” Id.

[8] The intake report reflected that a DCS family case manager (“FCM”) had 

contacted Father, who told her that he would like A.R. and H.R. to be placed 

with him. Id. at 50. Father was advised of the upcoming Indiana court date 

and said he would attempt to be present. Another FCM from Indiana had 

spoken with the North Carolina social worker Phillips, who stated that there 

were “no immediate concerns” with Father, that he was “actively engaged” in 

services, he completed a substance abuse assessment, but “was not able to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 6 of 34

produce a urine sample” for his most recent screen, but that NCDSS “plans to 

follow up with [Father] to complete a hair follicle test and urine drug screen.” 

Id. Phillips said that if there were no concerns with those drug tests results, 

North Carolina “does not have any immediate concerns with the children 

returning to [Father’s] care so long as he continues to abide by the court order 

which requires his contact be supervised.” Id. at 51. The juvenile court 

continued the initial hearing, placed A.R. and H.R. in foster care, and 

appointed court-appointed special advocate Greg Huff (“CASA Huff”). The 

juvenile court also appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”). Id. at 61-63.

[9] Father was present at the June 29, 2017 continued initial hearing, and he was 

present by telephone at the July 6, 2017 pretrial hearing. At the pretrial, DCS 

reported that A.R. and H.R. “would like to live with” Father and that, 

according to NCDSS (1) Father and his girlfriend are appropriate with the 

children, (2) Father was participating in services, and (3) the North Carolina 

CHINS case “will be closing soon.” Id. at 84-90. Father was also present at the 

next pretrial, on July 20, 2017. DCS objected to Father having temporary trial 

visitation (“TTV”) with A.R. and H.R., noting that there was still an open 

CHINS case in North Carolina2 and that DCS would like to have an ICPC3to 

 

2 DCS stated at the July 20 pretrial conference that North Carolina had filed a CHINS petition against Father 

for substance abuse, but DCS later filed a report with the juvenile court clarifying that the pleading filed in 

North Carolina was actually the Petition to Reopen and Review, which reported to that court that three 

children were living with Father because of housing instability with Mother and the children “not knowing 

where they would sleep at night.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 104. 

3

ICPC refers to Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. This court has held that the ICPC “does 

not apply to placement with an out-of-state parent[,]” and, pursuant to statute, it only applies to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 7 of 34

be completed. The GAL requested that any ICPC be completed soon so that 

A.R. and H.R. “can be placed on TTV with Father as soon as possible.” Id. at 

92. The juvenile court denied Father’s request for TTV at that time.

[10] A fact-finding hearing began on July 27, 2017, and it continued for two 

subsequent evidentiary hearings, on October 11 and November 30, 2017.4 

Father was present for all three hearings. At the July 2017 hearing, Father’s

counsel requested placement of A.R. and H.R. with Father, stating that North 

Carolina had found Father’s residence to be appropriate for the other three 

siblings that were living with Father. Counsel for DCS objected to immediate 

placement with Father, stating that at a mediation that had taken place a week 

prior, Father had tested positive for oxycodone, and that “I’m not sure if North 

Carolina knows that or not. . . . I’m kind of questioning whether they have all 

the information they need to make [a] determination as to whether father’s 

home is safe or not.” Tr. Vol. II at 10. Father’s counsel responded that Father 

took a screen “today,” and it was “clean” and that Father and his counsel did 

not receive a copy of a “dirty screen” and requested a copy. Id. at 10-11. The 

juvenile court denied Father’s request for immediate placement on TTV. The 

juvenile court stated, “I’m still worried a little bit about [F]ather. I’m glad the 

kids want to see [him], so that’s a step in the right direction[,]” but “[u]ntil I’m 

 

placement of a child in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption. Matter of B.L.P., 91 N.E.3d 625, 

630-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (expressing concern that “notwithstanding this unambiguous holding, apparently 

DCS is still requesting – and trial courts are still granting – ICPC evaluations for out-of-state parents.”).

4 We note that no evidence was presented at the July 27, 2018 hearing; it was brief and consisted only of 

argument by counsel. Evidence was presented at the two subsequent hearings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 8 of 34

confident that there’s an appropriate place I’m not willing to order any 

changes[.]” Id. at 11. Father later filed a motion requesting that the North

Carolina FCM, Rebecca Johnson (“NC FCM Johnson”), be permitted to testify 

telephonically, which request the juvenile court granted.

[11] Between the July 2017 hearing October 2017 fact-finding hearing, the North 

Carolina juvenile court issued a Review Order on September 28, 2017

(“September 2017 Review Order”). In it, the court recognized that Father had 

attended four Strong Fathers classes, in a twenty-week program, with Father 

reporting that he missed some weeks due to traveling to Indiana for court 

hearings, and the court expected Father “to attend the remaining weeks without 

further absences.” Pet’r’s Ex. 4. It also recognized that Father had completed a 

comprehensive clinical assessment, which recommended participation in a 

substance abuse group and for Father to attend Narcotics Anonymous. The 

assigned social worker would be working with Father and his girlfriend to 

arrange in-home therapeutic services for the three children living with them. 

The GAL said that the three children living with Father were doing well, felt

safe, wanted to stay there, and wanted all five siblings back together. Id. The 

NCDSS required that, if Mother were to return to North Carolina, her visits 

with the children be supervised, she report to NCDSS, and she complete an 

assessment and recommended treatment. The September 2017 Review Order 

concluded: (1) the three children living with Father “remain in the custody of 

[Mother] and in the home of [Father]”; (2) Father’s visitation with the three 

children no longer be supervised; (3) Father complete the programs and services 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 9 of 34

and “remain drug free,” (4) Father work with NCDSS to enroll the three 

children living with him in therapeutic services, (5) Mother comply with the 

Indiana juvenile court’s order and, if she returns to North Carolina, she 

complete an assessment and services, and (6) a copy of the September 2017 

Review Order be sent to the Indiana juvenile court “as soon as executed.” Id. 

[12] Thereafter, at the October 11, 2017 fact-finding hearing in Indiana, Father and 

his girlfriend, Bethany Byars (“Byars”), with whom Father lived, were present. 

At the beginning of the hearing, the juvenile court stated that it had just been 

advised that Father had “open warrants” from “other courts,” and Father was 

taken into custody at that time. Tr. Vol. II at 14; Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 125-

27. Counsel for Father had not been aware of the existence of the open 

warrants. Before the start of evidence, Mother admitted that A.R. and H.R. 

were CHINS, stating, “[Mother] would benefit from services in order to 

maintain sobriety. Therefore, coercive intervention of the Court is necessary.” 

Id. at 16-17. Thereafter, the juvenile court proceeded with fact-finding as to 

Father, and DCS first called Lauren Turley (“Turley”), an assessment worker 

with DCS. 

[13] Turley stated that, in May 2017, DCS filed a CHINS petition as to A.R. and 

H.R., in response to allegations of lack of supervision, not attending school,

concerns with Mother abusing substances, and A.R. having an inappropriate 

physical relationship with someone older than her. Turley had trouble locating 

Mother and when she did locate her, Mother would not let Turley speak to 

A.R. and H.R., requiring DCS to file a motion to compel. In the course of her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 10 of 34

investigation, Turley spoke to NCDSS after learning from Mother that there 

was an open CHINS case in North Carolina. However, Turley testified that she 

never looked at the petition and did not have information as to why the case 

was opened. After A.R. and H.R. were removed from Mother’s care, Turley 

spoke with Father, to advise him about “the situation” that was going on with 

A.R. and H.R. Tr. Vol. II at 23. Father explained to Turley that he was in 

North Carolina and, as to whether he was satisfied with A.R. and H.R.’s being 

in Mother’s care, he told Turley that “[h]e wanted the children in his care.” Id. 

at 25. In their conversation, Father told Turley that he was not sure if he would 

have transportation to Indiana because he relied on his mother for 

transportation and, he shared, that he relied on her “for supervising his contact 

with his children.” Id. at 23. Turley did not recall being told or learning why 

visitation was supervised. Turley said the CHINS filed against Mother was 

later substantiated, and A.R. and H.R. were placed in foster care, instead of 

with Father, because “[h]e was not able to come to Indianapolis so that we 

could get more information and determine his stability and safety.” Id. at 26. 

She further explained, “With the history that I was aware of for Indianapolis 

there were concerns for substance use and domestic violence in the past, but I 

wasn’t able to speak with [Father] and meet with him to fully access [sic] those 

things.” Id. at 28. 

[14] DCS next called to testify Crystal Heard (“Heard”), who was a home-based 

case manager and a visitation facilitator in Indiana. DCS referred the family to 

her in June 2017. As to Father, she observed three or four visits with A.R. and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 11 of 34

H.R. while he was in Indianapolis. She said that “[t]he girls are very excited to 

see their father” and on the way to the visits say that “they can’t wait to see 

him.” Id. at 32-33. The girls stated to Heard that they “can’t wait for this to be 

over” “because they want to go back with their dad[.]” Id. at 33. Heard 

described that, in her observations, Father seemed like “a concerned father,” he 

appropriately addressed behaviors, and had healthy conversations with them. 

Id. at 36. When asked if Father ever said anything or acted in a way to give her 

worry about his judgment or ability to parent, Heard said “No.” Id. She 

likewise said that she had no safety concerns regarding his ability to “tak[e] care 

of the kids.” Id. Heard acknowledged that Father drove nine hours each time 

to get to Indianapolis for court hearings and visitations. Heard testified that, in 

her opinion, placing A.R. and H.R. with Father was in their best interests. Id. 

at 38. 

[15] Heard did notice that Father was nervous and shaky during one or more 

visitations, which she indicated gave her some concern. Id. at 33-34. Upon 

DCS questioning, Heard acknowledged that she had never been to Father’s 

North Carolina home and could not testify if it was appropriate, and she was 

not fully aware of the services in which Father was participating in North 

Carolina, but recalled that he was in a father’s program and that drug screens 

were included in a North Carolina order. 

[16] Korinne Fox-Sibanda (“Fox-Sibanda”), a home-based therapist and visitation 

supervisor in Indiana, testified that her only contact was with Mother and A.R. 

Fox-Sibanda testified that, even if A.R. and H.R. were placed with Father, that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 12 of 34

she would recommend that A.R. have continued therapy due to traumas. 

Father’s counsel, on cross-examination, asked Fox-Sibanda, “Are you aware 

that [NCDSS] arranged individual therapy for [A.R.] down there?” and she 

replied that she was not aware but said it would be beneficial, adding that 

family therapy with Father also would be beneficial. Id. at 43-44.

[17] Next to testify at the October 11 hearing was FCM Michelle Johnson (“FCM 

Johnson”), who began involvement with the family in June 2017. She said that 

she learned from Father that “they do have an open case in North Carolina” 

and that his relationship with Mother is “not good” and that he had filed for 

dissolution. Id. at 48; 53. When asked if she knew what services Father was 

participating in, FCM Johnson said, “I believe he mentioned something about a 

Father Engagement program and I believe something related to substance 

abuse.” Id. DCS counsel inquired further about drug use, either on his own or 

with Mother, and FCM Johnson said, “During some of the telephone 

conversations and in-person contact that I had with [Father] . . . he indicated 

that they did do drugs here in Indiana with [Mother] and their friends, but he 

didn’t identify what substance they were using.” Id. at 51. FCM Johnson 

testified that referrals had been made as to Mother for home-based therapy, 

home-based case management, supervised visits, therapeutic visits, a substance 

abuse evaluation, and random screens, but, as to Father, only random screens 

when he was in town had been recommended. FCM Johnson did not recall 

seeing or receiving any documents concerning custody of A.R. and H.R. Id. at 

53. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 13 of 34

[18] FMC Johnson recalled that she had spoken to the case manager in North 

Carolina four to six times, and she was informed about services in which Father 

had been participating. FCM Johnson learned that, initially, Father had 

visitations supervised by his mother, “but ended up with the children in his care 

and his mother is no longer a party as to supervising the visits.” Id. at 55-56. 

As to services, she was told that he was in a father’s program and had random 

drug screens, noting that “recently I believe that they indicated they were trying 

to get him to do a screen but he didn’t screen when they asked him to, but other 

than that he’s engaged in the services.” Id. at 60. Father told FCM Johnson 

that “he was screening until his job took him out of county or something of that 

nature and it was kind of difficult for him to screen.” Id. at 64. FCM Johnson 

stated that, if Father were ordered to participate in screens, that she would 

“want to see that those screens are happening.” Id. at 63. FCM Johnson’s last 

conversation with the FCM in North Carolina was that Father was “actively 

participating” in “[a]ll the services.” Id. at 66. Father told FCM Johnson that 

he is willing to participate in any substance abuse treatment. Id. at 64.

[19] The information that FCM Johnson learned from the North Carolina FCM 

about Father’s “housing environment” is that it was “appropriate” and that 

Father was “working and he can meet the needs of the children.” Id. at 56. 

During FCM Johnson’s testimony, certified copies of court documents from 

North Carolina were admitted without objection. Id. at 54 (admitting Pet’r’s 

Exs. 1-4). Counsel for Father asked FCM Johnson, “Do you have any safety 

concerns today if [A.R. and H.R.] are placed with father in North Carolina?” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 14 of 34

and she responded, “No. Not based off the information from North Carolina, 

no.” Id. at 56. However, FCM Johnson stated that seeing Father be arrested at 

the start of the day’s hearing did give her some concern about the children’s 

safety, explaining “If he’s going to be an absent parent . . . obviously it’s going 

to be a safety concern.” Id. at 62. 

[20] There was testimony outlining the multiple placements that A.R. has been in 

throughout the proceedings,5 and counsel asked, “[Y]ou have no safety 

concerns placing her with [F]ather?” and she replied, “No.” Id. at 58; see also id. 

at 60 (stating that she had no safety concerns for A.R. and H.R. in Father’s care 

as long as Mother was not living with Father). She acknowledged that if A.R. 

were returned to North Carolina, that she would return to a prior school that 

she attended and that it would be a familiar environment for her. Id. FCM 

Johnson had briefly observed parenting time between Father and A.R. and 

H.R., and her impression was “[t]hat the girls love their father and they wanted 

to be with him[,]” noting that in her monthly one-on-one visits with the girls 

“that’s usually the conversation when I see them[,] you know that’s what they 

know, that’s where they want to be and they just say it all the time that they 

want to be with their father.” Id. at 61-62. 

 

5 Throughout the course of the CHINS proceedings, A.R. was moved at least five times, from foster care, to 

emergency shelter placement at YOC due to reports of sexual contact that occurred in the foster home, to 

another placement through the Courage Center/Children’s Bureau, to another placement through Seeds of 

Life, to another foster care placement in Martinsville, Indiana. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 15 of 34

[21] Because Father had been arrested at the start of the October 11 hearing, the 

juvenile court offered to Father’s counsel to schedule an additional hearing so 

that Father could testify, and the hearing was reconvened on November 30, 

2017. On November 15, 2017, DCS filed a Request for Judges to 

Communicate pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act

(“UCCJA”), stating that temporary emergency jurisdiction is provided pursuant 

to Section 204 of the UCCJA and that under that same section the judges

“must” communicate. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 131-34. 

[22] At the start of the November 30, 2017 fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court 

stated that it had contacted the North Carolina judge to schedule a conference 

under UCCJA, but that no conference had yet been scheduled.6 Father’s 

counsel called Father to testify. Father stated that this was his seventh time 

coming to Indiana on the matter, stating that his purpose was “trying to get my

two children back.” Id. at 85, 88. Father drove to Indiana on each occasion. 

Father testified that he was still married to Mother, but had filed for dissolution 

on three occasions and hoped to “be completely done with the situation.” Id. at 

87. Father was currently living in North Carolina with Byars, his three 

children, and one of hers. Father said that North Carolina filed the Motion to 

Re-Open the closed CHINS case because, initially, he had supervised visitation 

but when the three children came back to live with him, North Carolina needed 

 

6 The juvenile court asked counsel for DCS and for Father whether each desired to be present for the judges’ 

telephonic conference, and both of them waived their presence, as did the guardian ad litem. Tr. Vol. II at 78, 

81.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 16 of 34

to “go back and remove the sanctions.” Id. at 89. He said that NCDSS had 

been to his three-bedroom residence. Father stated that, as part of courtordered services, Father attended drug treatment class twice a week, but that he 

had just recently started it. Id. at 89-90. He had also completed a Strong 

Fathers class in September 2017, which he described as a domestic violence 

class that taught skills with how to deal with children on different age levels. 

Father testified that he and Byars were both employed, and they were current 

on rent. Father stated that a family therapist “comes out . . . two to three times 

a week.” Id. at 92. Father said that A.R. and H.R. love him and also Byars, 

and “I think that they need to be back with their family, with their siblings that 

I have in North Carolina, and I just think that it would be a better life in North 

Carolina where their other brother and sisters are and with me and [Byars]

instead of being here where they really have nobody.” Id. at 95.

[23] On cross-examination, Father was asked why his parenting time was supervised 

and why the CHINS case was re-opened. He explained that it was supervised 

because “I . . .was not finishing my classes and not going to class like I was 

supposed to.” Id. at 99. The case was re-opened as to the three children living 

with him, so that visits were no longer required to be supervised. 

[24] DCS called the current foster parent (“Foster Parent”) of A.R. She testified that 

A.R. had lived with her for about a month, that A.R. received home-based and 

other therapy, and that she was currently suspended from school due to 

behavior issues, but would be going back in a couple of days. Foster Mother 

said “Her behavior has been okay. She’s just a little home sick.” Id. at 102. By 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 17 of 34

home sick, Foster Mother explained, “She talks all day about being with dad, 

being with dad, dad. So she – I feel like that she has a lot of confidence in her 

dad and she really loves her dad.” Id. at 104.

[25] Counsel for DCS presented closing argument that the open CHINS case in 

North Carolina only covered the three children that were with Father, that A.R. 

has issues and needs therapy, and that DCS is concerned “that she continue to 

receive assistance and services. . . . We want to be sure that . . . the children will 

be safe in his care.” Id. at 105. The GAL stated to the juvenile court that the 

girls have said from the beginning that they want to be with Father and no one 

else, that A.R. would be much better back with her siblings, that “this has been 

open for way to[o] long[,]” and “I think that they both need to go back to 

[F]ather in North Carolina if at all possible as soon as possible.” Id. at 105. 

The juvenile court took the matter under advisement.7 

[26] On February 5, 2018, the juvenile court issued an order adjudicating A.R. and 

H.R. to be CHINS (“the CHINS Order”). The CHINS order found, in part:

20. [Father’s] supervised parenting time sessions with [A.R. and 

H.R.] has been positive.

21. [Father] is currently engaged in drug treatment in North 

Carolina. This program meets twice a week. [Father] began this 

 

7 On January 29, 2018, Father filed a motion requesting placement with him, asserting that ICPC does not 

apply to his situation because he is the biological father. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 148.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 18 of 34

service just prior to the [Indiana] November 30, 2017 [factfinding] hearing.

22. [Father] is engaged in a Strong Father’s program in North 

Carolina. 

24. . . .The children’s current custodial parent is [Mother]. . . . 

Pursuant to the last known order dated July 15, 2016, [Father’s] 

parenting time with [A.R. and H.R.] is ordered to be strictly 

supervised. The original concern of the [NCDSS] regarding 

[Father’s] drug use has not been fully addressed as [he] only 

recently started substance abuse treatment.

25. [A.R. and H.R.] need care, treatment, or rehabilitation that 

the children are not receiving; and are unlikely to be provided or 

accepted without the coercive intervention of the Court. Despite 

being recommended to engage in substance abuse treatment in 

June of 2017 and presumably being ordered to engage in this 

treatment prior to the closure of the children’s matter in July of 

2016, [Father] did not begin the substance abuse treatment until 

just prior to the November 30, 2017 hearing. [Father] indicated 

that he completed the Strong Father’s program, on September 23, 

2017. However, the Court does not find this testimony to be

reliable as the findings of the September 19, 2017 order [North 

Carolina juvenile court] indicate that [Father] had completed 

only four of the 20-week program as of August 2, 2017. 

Therefore, [Father] would not have been slated to complete the 

program until the end of December. As [Father] did not engage 

in domestic violence and substance abuse treatment in a timely 

manner under the previous child welfare matter, the Court finds 

that this Court’s intervention is necessary to ensure that [Father] 

engages in and completes any other additional services.

Id. at 154-55. The juvenile court continued,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 19 of 34

[Father] has been involved in past child welfare matters since 

2015 and only recently began services to address substance abuse 

and domestic violence.

Should [Father] return to North Carolina with the children, 

[Mother] has the means and the legal right to travel to North 

Carolina to retrieve them. Should this occur, the children are 

likely to return to the exact situation that they were in when this 

cause of action was filed[.]

[A.R. and H.R.] need a parent who is stable, sober and able to 

provide a healthy environment. Neither [Mother] nor [Father] is 

this individual at this time.

[T]he Court finds that the children are in need of services 

pursuant to Indiana Code [§] 31-34-1-1 as it pertains to [Father].

Id. at 155. 

[27] On February 22, 2018, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. Father, 

by counsel, asked the juvenile court to reconsider the CHINS adjudication as it 

pertains to Father, advised the court that Father had petitioned for custody of 

the five children in North Carolina, and requested increased parenting time and 

temporary trial visitation. The next day, the juvenile court issued a 

dispositional order, which, among other things, continued the temporary 

placement of A.R. and H.R. in foster care. Id. at 35. Father now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 20 of 34

Discussion and Decision 

I. Jurisdiction under UCCJA

[28] Father argues on appeal that the Indiana juvenile court did not have jurisdiction 

to enter a CHINS adjudication or disposition. In determining whether a trial 

court has improperly exercised jurisdiction under UCCJA, we apply an abuse 

of discretion standard. In re Paternity of R.A.F., 766 N.E.2d 718, 723 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2002), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's 

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances 

before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.

[29] The UCCJA, Indiana Code section 31-21-5-1(a)(1) et. seq., is a procedural 

framework to avoid having courts from different states issuing contradictory 

child custody orders. The UCCJA is the exclusive method of determining the 

subject matter jurisdiction of a court in a custody dispute with an interstate 

dimension. R.A.F., 766 N.E.2d at 723. “Under the UCCJA, the court which 

first enters a custody decree on a matter gains exclusive jurisdiction only until 

the child and all parties have left the state.” Id. Under that proposition, North 

Carolina had exclusive jurisdiction in this case because it awarded custody to 

Mother and retained jurisdiction until the children and all parties left the state, 

and, here, Father and three children still resided in North Carolina. See Pet’r’s 

Exs. 1, 2 (July Review Order stating that North Carolina “retains jurisdiction in 

this matter until terminated by order of the Court” or until the children reach 

age of majority). Id. Although a CHINS case is not a custody dispute per se, 

we have held that when considering a CHINS case, a juvenile court must 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 21 of 34

exercise its jurisdiction within the framework and policy considerations of the 

UCCJA. R.A.F., 766 N.E.2d at 724-25 (citing and discussing In the Matter of 

E.H., 612 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), opinion adopted, 624 N.E.2d 471 

(Ind. 1993)).

[30] In E.H., this court “considered the application of the UCCJA to an Indiana 

court’s exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to our CHINS statute.” R.A.F., 766 

N.E.2dat 724-25. In E.H., the mother and father lived in Texas and were the 

parents of two children. Their marriage was dissolved in Texas, with primary 

physical custody awarded to the mother, and she moved with the two children 

to Indiana. E.H., 612 N.E.2d at 176-77. Following a visitation with father in 

Indiana, the mother suspected that he had sexually abused them. Id. at 177. A 

CHINS petition was filed in Indiana, and the juvenile court found that the 

children were CHINS and entered orders for evaluation and therapy, and 

eventually terminated Father’s parental rights. Id. at 180-81. Father appealed, 

arguing that the Indiana CHINS court lacked jurisdiction, and a divided court 

of appeals determined that the Indiana CHINS court had jurisdiction to act, 

although ultimately reversed the CHINS determination and dispositional order 

and the termination of father’s parental rights because of lack of evidentiary

support. Id. at 189-90 (Barteau, J., concurring in result; Chezem, J., 

dissenting).

[31] On transfer, our Supreme Court adopted this court’s majority opinion in E.H., 

which recognized that “when confronted with existence of a valid foreign 

custody-visitation determination, the CHINS court must proceed under the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 22 of 34

provisions of the UCCJA” and that, pursuant to a then-existing emergency 

provision in the UCCJA,

8

the Indiana CHINS court was allowed to exercise 

temporary jurisdiction “for the duration of the emergency[,]” but should 

terminate its jurisdiction after the emergency has passed. Id. at 184-86. 

[32] This court similarly considered the relationship between the CHINS and 

UCCJA statutes in T.Y.T. v. Allen County Division of Family and Children, 714 

N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), where the mother appealed a CHINS 

determination. In T.Y.T., the child was born in California to the mother, who 

was soon arrested for underage drinking. The child was removed from her care 

and placed with a man identified by mother as being the father. Id. at 754. 

When the child was around one year old, the father took the child to Indiana, 

left child with a child care provider, and did not return. At that time, the 

mother was living in Illinois with a boyfriend. A CHINS petition was filed, 

mother did not appear for hearings, and the child was determined to be a 

CHINS and placed in foster care. Id. The mother appealed, arguing among 

other things that the Indiana CHINS court did not have jurisdiction. Id. at 754-

55. The T.Y.T. court recognized the following:

A juvenile court has original jurisdiction over CHINS 

proceedings, pursuant to Ind. Code Ann. § 31-30-1-1[]. The 

jurisdiction conferred on courts in such cases enables the State to 

 

8 The provision allowed a state to make a custody determination when the child is physically present in the 

state, and “it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected or threatened 

with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent.” In re Paternity of R.A.F., 766 N.E.2d 718, 

725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Ind. Code § 31-1-11.6-3(a)(3)(B)), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 23 of 34

respond to emergency situations involving children who are not 

likely to be helped without court intervention. Matter of E.H., 612 

N.E.2d at 174. In such cases, jurisdiction under the CHINS 

statutes is temporary, lasting only for the duration of the 

emergency. When the emergency passes, the temporary 

jurisdiction conferred by the CHINS statutes ends. Id.

Id. at 755. The T.Y.T. court rejected the mother’s claim that the CHINS court 

did not have jurisdiction to preside over a CHINS proceeding, stating “the 

court has jurisdiction to address an emergency, which certainly includes where 

the child should stay until the matter is resolved.” Id. 

[33] Currently, the UCCJA allows for a court to exercise emergency jurisdiction

pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-31-5-4, which provides: 

(a) An Indiana court has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the 

child is present in Indiana and:

(1) the child has been abandoned; or

(2) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child 

because:

(A) the child;

(B) the child’s sibling; or

(C) the child’s parent;

is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 24 of 34

Ind. Code § 31-21-5-4(a). If an Indiana court that is exercising jurisdiction 

under that section is informed that a child custody proceeding has been 

commenced in or a determination has been made by a court of another state,

the Indiana court shall immediately communicate with the court of the other 

state to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, 

and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order. Ind. Code § 

31-21-5-4(g).

[34] Here, the Indiana juvenile court was faced with a situation where Mother took 

A.R. and H.R. from North Carolina and brought them to Indiana. DCS 

removed them from her home, and the Indiana CHINS petition was filed to 

protect A.R. and H.R. because Mother demonstrated an inability to care for 

them. The verified CHINS petition and the preliminary inquiry revealed that 

Mother appeared to be using drugs, had exposed the Children to violence, was 

avoiding DCS, hiding H.R., and claiming she would be leaving for North 

Carolina soon. Father and Mother had domestic violence issues from when 

they lived together. At the time of removal, the most recent North Carolina 

order allowed only supervised visitation for Father, and A.R. and H.R. were 

placed in foster care. During the CHINS proceedings, Indiana DCS 

caseworkers were in contact with the North Carolina caseworkers with regard 

to the situation with Mother in Indiana and with regard to Father’s status, 

home, and the re-opened CHINS case. At one point, the Indiana juvenile court

made contact with the North Carolina court, but, according to the record before 

us, a conference between the two judges was never arranged or took place. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 25 of 34

When NCDSS learned of the situation in Indiana, it re-opened the 2014 North 

Carolina CHINS-type proceeding on the three children living with Father. 

However, it did not re-open the prior CHINS case as to A.R. and H.R., and, 

therefore, we note, there were not two courts in two states issuing competing 

orders regarding placement of these two children.

[35] We find that under the facts of this case, and pursuant to UCCJA and case law 

precedent, the juvenile court was not without jurisdiction to permit the filing of 

the CHINS petition and conduct CHINS proceedings.

II. CHINS Adjudication

[36] We next address Father’s contention that the juvenile court’s CHINS 

determination was not supported by the evidence. “[CHINS] cases aim to help 

families in crisis—to protect children, not punish parents.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 

1283, 1285 (Ind. 2014). The focus is on the best interests of the child and 

whether the child needs help that the parent will not be willing or able to 

provide. Id. As our Supreme Court has recognized, a CHINS adjudication 

may have long-lasting collateral consequences for the family, and thus, “[t]he 

intrusion of a CHINS judgment, then, must be reserved for families who cannot

meet those needs without coercion.” Id.

[37] When determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a CHINS 

determination, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the 

witnesses. Id. at 1287. We consider only the evidence that supports the 

juvenile court’s decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 26 of 34

Where, as here, a juvenile court’s order contains specific findings of fact and 

conclusions thereon, 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. We reverse a CHINS determination only if it was clearly 

erroneous. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). A decision is clearly 

erroneous if the record facts do not support the findings or if it applies the 

wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id. 

[38] A CHINS proceeding is civil in nature, so 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. 2017). 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 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 27 of 34

Thus, this statute requires “three basic elements: that the parent’s actions or 

inactions have seriously endangered the child, that the child’s needs are unmet, 

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

S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. The third 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. In re D.J., 68 N.E.2d at 580 (quotations 

omitted, emphasis in original). When determining CHINS status under section 

31-34-1-1, particularly the “coercive intervention” element, courts should 

consider the family’s condition not just when the case was filed, but also when 

it is heard. Id. “Doing so avoids punishing parents for past mistakes when they 

have already corrected them.” Id. at 581.

[39] In the present case, Father contends that the juvenile court’s order adjudicating 

A.R. and H.R. as CHINS was clearly erroneous and was not supported by 

sufficient evidence. In particular, Father challenges the following 

determinations:

[Father] has been involved in past child welfare matters since 

2015 and only recently began services to address substance abuse 

and domestic violence issues. The court also stated that A.R. 

and H.R. need a parent who is stable, sober and able to provide a 

healthy environment. Neither [Mother] or [Father] is this 

individual at this time.

Appellant’s Br. at 14; Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 155. Father maintains, “There is 

no support for the finding that [Father] cannot provide a healthy environment 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 28 of 34

and this finding is contradicted by the DCS’s own witnesses who supported 

placing the children with their father.” Appellant’s Br. at 14. Father argues both 

that coercive intervention was not necessary and that the disposition did not 

place A.R. and H.R. in the least restrictive setting, which would have been with 

him. Id. at 13. We agree.

[40] In this case, there appears to be no dispute that Father loves A.R. and H.R. and 

that, from the start of the CHINS proceedings, Father has requested placement 

of them with him, and that he drove from North Carolina to Indiana on at least 

seven occasions for hearings. There is also no dispute that A.R. and H.R. love 

Father and have expressed to case workers, visitation supervisors, the GAL, 

and foster parents that they wish to be placed with Father. The inquiry is 

whether DCS presented sufficient evidence to establish that A.R. and H.R. 

were CHINS and whether disposition that directed continued foster care was 

warranted. Our Supreme Court has recently recognized that “‘[n]ot every 

endangered child is a child in need of services,’ and not every endangered child 

needs ‘the State’s parens patriae intrusion into the ordinarily private sphere of the 

family.’” In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580 (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287).

[41] Here, when Mother and Father were living together in North Carolina, a 

CHINS-like petition was filed by NCDSS in September 2014, alleging abuse or 

neglect, substance abuse by parents, and domestic violence, and the children 

were in the care and control of NCDSS for some period in 2014 through 

sometime in 2016. Evidence was presented at a review hearing that, by May 

2016, Father was employed, paid child support, visited regularly, was bonded 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 29 of 34

with the children, but had failed some drug screens. The ensuing July 2016 

Review Order awarded custody to Mother, directed that Father’s visitation be 

supervised, and closed the CHINS matter. 

[42] At or around the end of the school year in 2016, Mother left North Carolina 

with all five children, but returned with them to North Carolina not long after, 

and three of the five children went to live with Father. In or around April 2017, 

Mother returned to Indiana with A.R. and H.R. Because NCDSS received 

reports in May 2017 that, among other things, the children were not attending 

school, the NCDSS filed a petition in June 2017 to re-open the CHINS matter. 

NCDSS conducted an investigation of Father’s residence and found no 

evidence of abuse or neglect, and social worker Phillips reported that Father 

had taken and passed all screens and had started attending a substance abuse 

group. NCDSS asked the North Carolina court to allow the three children to 

live with Father and to lift the order of supervised visitation. 

[43] Meanwhile, in Indiana, DCS received reports about Mother’s lack of care, and, 

eventually, DCS removed A.R. and H.R. from her home in June 2017 and filed 

the CHINS petition. The intake report filed with the juvenile court indicated 

that DCS had been in contact with North Carolina’s social worker Phillips, 

who had “no immediate concerns” with Father and reported that Father was 

“actively participating” in services. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 51. The juvenile 

court placed A.R. and H.R. in foster care and appointed a CASA and GAL. At 

the pretrial hearing, DCS reported that, according to NCDSS, Father and his 

girlfriend, Byars, are appropriate with the children, that Father was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 30 of 34

participating in services, and that the North Carolina CHINS matter “will be 

closing soon.” Id. at 88. The GAL in Indiana opined that A.R. and H.R. be 

placed on TTV with Father “as soon as possible.” Id. at 92. DCS objected to 

TTV due to the still-open CHINS proceeding in North Carolina. 

[44] At the July 27, 2017 hearing, Father’s counsel asked that A.R. and H.R be 

placed with Father, but counsel for DCS objected, stating that at a mediation 

that took place the week prior, Father had tested positive for oxycodone. 

Father’s counsel was unaware of that screening, and no evidence of it was 

admitted into evidence. Father took and passed a drug screen on July 27, 2017. 

However, the juvenile court indicated that it was “still worried a little bit about 

[F]ather” and continued the children in foster placement. Tr. Vol. II at 11.

[45] After that July hearing, and before the next Indiana fact-finding hearing, the 

North Carolina juvenile court issued the September 2017 Review Order stating 

that Father had attended four of twenty Strong Fathers classes, with Father 

explaining that he had missed some classes due to being in Indiana for hearings. 

In the September 2017 Review Order, the North Carolina juvenile court 

directed Father to attend the remaining weeks without further absences. It also 

reflected that Father had completed a clinical assessment and was 

recommended to participate in a substance abuse group and Narcotics 

Anonymous. The assigned social worker said that she would be working with 

Father and Byars to arrange therapeutic services for the three children. The 

North Carolina GAL said that the three children living with Father were doing 

well, felt safe, and wanted all five siblings to be back together. The September 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 31 of 34

2017 Review Order directed that the three children living with Father continue 

to do so, lifted the requirement that Father’s visitation with the three children 

be supervised, and ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Indiana 

juvenile court.

[46] When Father appeared at the October 11, 2017 CHINS fact-finding hearing in 

Indiana, he was taken into custody on open warrants, although there was no 

information on the record discussing the subject matter or basis of the warrants. 

At the hearing, DCS assessment worker Turley testified that after A.R. and 

H.R. were removed from Mother’s home, she spoke with Father to advise him 

about the situation with Mother. Turley explained that A.R. and H.R. were 

initially placed in foster care because “[w]ith the history that I was aware of for 

Indianapolis there were concerns for substance abuse and domestic violence in 

the past[,]” and Father was not able to immediately come to Indianapolis “so 

that we could get more information and determine his stability and safety.” Tr. 

Vol. II at 26, 28. The home-based case manager and visitation facilitator, 

Heard, said that A.R. and H.R. were consistently excited to see their Father, 

and that, in Heard’s observations of Father, he seemed like “a concerned 

Father” who appropriately addressed behaviors and had healthy conversations 

with A.R. and H.R. Id. at 36. She further stated that Father did not act in a 

way to give her worry about his judgment or ability to parent and that she had 

no safety concerns regarding his ability to take care of them. Id.

[47] FCM Johnson stated that during some in-person contact with Father, he shared 

with her that he and Mother in the past did drugs in Indiana with their friends, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 32 of 34

but nothing more specific. FCM Johnson had spoken with the North Carolina 

FCM four to six times during the course of the proceedings and, according to 

their most recent conversation, she learned that Father was “actively 

participating” in “[a]ll the services.” Id. at 66. The North Carolina FCM also 

told FCM Johnson that Father’s housing environment was appropriate and that 

Father was employed and can “meet the needs of [A.R. and H.R].” Id. at 56. 

Father told FCM Johnson that he is willing to participate in any substance 

abuse treatment. When FCM Johnson was asked if she had any safety

concerns about placing A.R. and H.R. with Father, she replied that, based upon 

the information she had received from North Carolina, she did not have any 

safety concerns, so long as Mother was not living with Father. Id. at 56, 58, 60. 

However, FCM Johnson did have concern about Father being arrested at the 

start of the hearing, saying, “If he’s going to be an absent parent . . . obviously 

it’s going to be a safety concern.” Id. at 62. FCM Johnson stated that if A.R. 

and H.R. were returned to North Carolina, A.R. would return to a prior school 

that she had attended and to a familiar environment. 

[48] At the November 30, 2017 fact-finding hearing, Father testified that NCDSS 

had been to his residence and approved of it, that as part of court-ordered 

services he was attending a drug treatment class twice a week, although he had 

just recently started attending. Id. at 89-90. Father testified that he had 

completed a Strong Father’s program in September 2017, although the Indiana 

CHINS court found that this assertion was not “reliable” because, according to 

North Carolina’s September 2017 Review Order, Father had completed four of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 33 of 34

the 20-week program as of August 2, 2017, and therefore, Father would not 

have been slated to complete the program until the end of December that year. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 155. Father testified that he and Byars were both 

employed, current on rent, and that a family therapist comes to the home two 

to three times per week. 

[49] The current foster mother for A.R. testified that A.R. had been experiencing 

behavior issues and was currently suspended from school, but would be 

returning in a matter of days. The foster mother indicated that A.R. was “home 

sick” and “talks all day about being with dad[.]” Tr. Vol. II at 102, 104. The 

GAL shared, in closing remarks, her opinion that “this has been open for way 

to[o] long” and that A.R. and H.R. “need to go back” to Father’s residence “as 

soon as possible.” Id. at 105. 

[50] We find that it was appropriate for DCS to file the CHINS petition and for the 

juvenile court to hold CHINS proceedings for some period of time to find 

temporary placement for A.R. and H.R. while gaining information about the 

North Carolina proceedings and that state’s assessment of Father and his home. 

However, we cannot say that the State proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence that A.R. and H.R. needed care or treatment that was unlikely to be 

provided or accepted without the juvenile court’s coercive intervention. 

Although Father has some history of making poor choices involving substance 

abuse and domestic violence with Mother, the record reflects that he “has made 

every effort to remedy the situation and become a suitable caregiver[,]” and at 

the time of the fact-finding hearings, Father was actively participating in all 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JC-475 | August 31, 2018 Page 34 of 34

services, his home was approved by NCDSS, and there were no specified 

concerns for his ability to care for the children. Matter of B.L.P., 91 N.E.3d 625, 

635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (reversing termination of a father’s parental rights). 

Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s CHINS determination.

[51] Reversed. 

[52] Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.