Court Opinion

ID: 9901333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 17:09:34.688565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.085210
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        Nov 21 2023, 8:59 am

                                                                             CLERK
                                                                         Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                            Court of Appeals
                                                                              and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Wm. Joseph Carlin, Jr.                                    Theodore E. Rokita
Auburn, Indiana                                           Indiana Attorney General
                                                          Monika Prekopa Talbot
                                                          Deputy Attorney General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                           IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of B.M., C.M., and                          November 21, 2023
S.M. (Minor Children), Children                           Court of Appeals Case No.
in Need of Services,                                      23A-JC-1285
and                                                       Appeal from the DeKalb Circuit
                                                          Court
N.M. (Father),
                                                          The Honorable Kurt B. Grimm,
Appellant-Respondent,                                     Judge

        v.                                                Trial Court Cause Nos.
                                                          17C01-2301-JC-1, -2, -3

Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner

                                  Opinion by Judge Crone
                              Judges Riley and Mathias concur.

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023                            Page 1 of 14
      Case Summary
[1]   N.M. (Father) appeals the child in need of services (CHINS) adjudications for

      his children B.M., C.M., and S.M. (the Children). He claims that the CHINS

      adjudications are erroneous and must be reversed because the trial court abused

      its discretion by denying his counsel’s motion to withdraw, which deprived

      Father of his right to self-representation. He also argues that the evidence was

      insufficient to establish that the Children needed care, treatment, or

      rehabilitation that they were not receiving and were unlikely to be provided

      without the court’s coercive intervention. Finding these arguments meritless,

      we affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   The evidence in support of the CHINS adjudications follows. Father and J.C.

      (Mother) have three children: B.M., born in 2007, C.M., born in 2010, and

      S.M., born in 2013. Father’s paternity was established by court order, and it

      appears that initially Mother had primary physical custody of the Children. In

      2015, due to Mother’s incarceration, she and Father entered into an agreement

      that granted Father custody of the Children. 1 After Mother’s release in 2017,

      Father retained custody.

[3]   In 2022, the Children were on spring break with Father in Florida. Throughout

      the break, they called and texted Mother expressing apprehension over Father’s

      1
          The record does not reveal the terms of the agreement.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023    Page 2 of 14
      conduct, such as Father leaving them alone in a hotel room and not returning

      for a long time. In one call, they told Mother that they were “scared that their

      dad was driving with them drunk and he was swerving[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 28.

      Father was arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated as a third

      violation within ten years. 2 The Florida Department of Child Services detained

      the Children and placed them in foster care until Mother was able to travel to

      Florida to retrieve them. Mother and the Children returned to Indiana and lived

      with the Children’s maternal grandmother (Grandmother) for the next six

      months. Mother filed a request for an emergency change of custody, but before

      the court ruled on the request, she returned the Children to Father’s care, at his

      insistence, after he was released from jail on bail and had returned to Indiana.

[4]   In October 2022, Auburn Police Department Officer Jeffrey Arnett responded

      to a report of a disturbance at Father’s residence. When Officer Arnett arrived,

      he observed Father in handcuffs with a bloody nose. Father was charged with

      class A misdemeanor domestic battery of B.M.

[5]   In December 2022, Grandmother contacted Officer Arnett and requested that

      he accompany her to Father’s residence to check on the Children. When Officer

      Arnett was speaking to Father at the door to his house, B.M. came to the door

      and told the officer that “everything was not okay.” Id. at 11. Officer Arnett

      could tell from B.M.’s demeanor that B.M. did not want him to leave. Officer

      2
        The CHINS petition alleged that Father had been convicted in the Florida case, but Father testified at the
      factfinding hearing that the case was still pending.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023                             Page 3 of 14
      Arnett asked Father if he could speak with the Children, but Father refused.

      Based on what B.M. had said, Officer Arnett informed Father that he was not

      going to leave until he confirmed that the Children were safe. Father began

      yelling at the police so loud “that everyone in the neighborhood could hear.”

      Id. at 12. The police directed Father to lower his voice multiple times, but he

      refused. Ultimately, Father was detained so that the police could enter the

      residence to check on the Children. Father was charged with resisting law

      enforcement and disorderly conduct.

[6]   In January 2023, Father was arrested and charged with operating while

      intoxicated (OWI). On January 12, 2023, the Indiana Department of Child

      Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging that the Children were CHINS because

      Father had multiple OWI convictions and had been charged with additional

      crimes in which he was under the influence of alcohol and the Children were

      physically or emotionally impacted. The petition further alleged that Mother

      was unable to provide for the Children’s needs.

[7]   That same day, the trial court held an initial and detention hearing and ordered

      the Children to be removed from their parents’ care. DCS placed the Children

      with Grandmother. Father asked the court to appoint an attorney based upon

      his indigency, and the court appointed Keven Likes. On February 15, 2023,

      Father sent the court a letter requesting appointment of a different attorney,

      asserting that Likes had not provided him with any documents or evidence

      from DCS and that he had no confidence that Likes had any interest in

      defending him.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023    Page 4 of 14
[8]   On March 6, 2023, the trial court held a CHINS factfinding hearing. Prior to

      the hearing, Mother signed an agreement stipulating that the Children were

      CHINS because she did not have appropriate stable housing and was unable to

      care for the Children. At the beginning of the hearing, Likes informed the court

      that Father had told him that “he wasn’t interested in signing an agreement and

      he was interested in representing himself” and moved to withdraw from the

      case. Id. at 5. The trial court responded, “[A]t this late date, I’m not inclined to

      withdraw the appointment of Mr. Likes as [Father’s] attorney[,]” and instructed

      the parties to proceed. Id. DCS called Officer Arnett, Mother, Father, and the

      DCS family case manager to testify. The Children’s guardian ad litem was also

      present. Mother testified that she was currently homeless and that she believed

      that Grandmother’s home was an appropriate place for the Children. Father

      also testified that Grandmother was providing adequate care for all their needs

      and had no objection to their placement with her.

[9]   Likes cross-examined all the witnesses, including Father. During his cross-

      examination of Father, Likes offered into evidence Father’s plea agreement to

      the 2022 domestic battery, disorderly conduct, and resisting law enforcement

      charges and the 2023 OWI charge. Father was still incarcerated and awaiting

      sentencing. Father testified that, based on the plea agreement, he was hoping to

      serve his two-and-a-half-year sentence on house arrest, which would allow him

      to provide care to the Children. Likes also specifically questioned Father about

      each of the incidents giving rise to the charges against him, so that Father could

      tell his side of the story. At the close of DCS’s case, Likes acknowledged that

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023      Page 5 of 14
       the court had afforded him “a lot of latitude” in cross-examining Father so that

       Father said “what he was interested in saying.” Id. at 70.

[10]   At the close of the hearing, the guardian ad litem opined that he believed that a

       CHINS adjudication was appropriate. He stated that Mother admitted that the

       Children were CHINS and Father was in jail and was going to be in jail for at

       least another month and a half and possibly longer, and therefore neither parent

       was able to take care of the Children. The guardian ad litem explained that

       without the coercive intervention of the court, DCS would not be able to

       provide services to the Children. The court agreed.

[11]   On March 22, 2023, the trial court issued an order finding that the Children

       were CHINS and that removal from the home environment was in the

       Children’s best interests because “of the allegations admitted and of an

       inability, refusal or neglect to provide shelter, care, and or supervision at the

       present time.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 29.

[12]   On April 24, 2023, Likes filed a motion to withdraw appearance stating that

       Father wished to represent himself. On May 1, 2023, the trial court held a

       dispositional hearing. DCS filed the predispositional report that morning. The

       trial court took judicial notice of the sentencing order in the Indiana cases to

       which Father had pled guilty and noted that he had been sentenced to two and

       a half years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Father again requested to

       represent himself, and, after ensuring that Father understood the drawbacks of

       self-representation, the court granted Likes’s motion to withdraw. Father

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023      Page 6 of 14
       testified that had he been permitted to represent himself at the factfinding

       hearing, he would have called witnesses and introduced text messages and

       video evidence from the December 2022 police welfare check that gave rise to

       his disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges.

[13]   On May 10, 2023, the trial court issued a dispositional order, ordering that the

       Children remain outside the home and that Father contact the family case

       manager every week. The court found, just as it had in its prior order, that

       removal from the home environment was in the Children’s best interests

       because “of the allegations admitted, [and] of an inability, refusal or neglect to

       provide shelter, care, and/or supervision at the present time.” Appealed Order

       at 3. This appeal ensued.

       Discussion and Decision

       Section 1 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion by
       denying counsel’s motion to withdraw at the start of the
       factfinding hearing.
[14]   Father first challenges the trial court’s denial of Likes’s motion to withdraw

       appearance that he made at the beginning of the factfinding hearing. We review

       a trial court’s ruling on an attorney’s motion to withdraw for an abuse of

       discretion. In re K.S., 917 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “An abuse of

       discretion exists only when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic

       and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023      Page 7 of 14
[15]   Father argues that by denying Likes’s motion to withdraw, the trial court

       denied Father the right to represent himself. He further asserts that the trial

       court “made no inquiry whatsoever as to [his] reasons or his ability to self-

       represent[,]” and “[c]onsequently, [he] was deprived of his constitutional and

       statutory right to present evidence.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. In essence, Father is

       arguing that the trial court had a duty to make inquiries regarding his reasons

       for requesting self-representation before ruling on the motion to withdraw.

[16]   We note that Father did not inform the trial court of his desire to represent

       himself until the start of the factfinding hearing. His earlier letter to the trial

       court did not indicate any desire on Father’s part to represent himself. On

       appeal, Father directs us to no CHINS case that requires a trial court to

       question a parent who has been appointed counsel regarding why that parent

       wishes to proceed pro se when the request for self-representation is made at the

       latest possible moment. In the context of a criminal defendant’s right to self-

       representation, our supreme court has held that the assertion of that right “must

       be asserted within a reasonable time prior to the day on which the trial begins”

       and that “[m]orning of trial requests are thus per se untimely.” Russell v. State,

       270 Ind. 55, 62, 383 N.E.2d 309, 314 (1978). Further, “[a]ny self-representation

       request made the day of trial or later may be summarily denied, for self-

       representation after this point is completely a matter of the trial court’s

       discretion.” Id. at 64, 383 N.E.2d at 315.

[17]   We recognize that there are differences between criminal cases and CHINS

       cases, which are civil in nature. In re Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1209 (Ind. 2019).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023         Page 8 of 14
       However, with regard to asserting the right to self-representation, we are

       unpersuaded that a party in a CHINS case is entitled to greater protections than

       a defendant in a criminal case. Thus, we decline to conclude that where, as

       here, a request for self-representation is made on the morning of the hearing,

       the trial court has a duty to make inquiries before ruling on a motion to

       withdraw.

[18]   In addition, we are unpersuaded that the trial court’s denial of counsel’s motion

       to withdraw was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

       circumstances before it. DeKalb County Local Rule 17-TR-3.1-2 provides that

       the court shall grant permission to withdraw only upon the filing of an

       appearance by new counsel, upon written motion that has been served on the

       client ten days prior to filing, or upon other good cause found by the court. In

       this case, the first two options are clearly inapplicable, leaving only good cause

       as a permissible basis for granting the motion to withdraw. As noted, the

       motion was made at the beginning of the factfinding hearing. Our supreme

       court has stated, “None of the interests involved here, the right of self-

       representation, the right to counsel, or the interest in preserving an orderly …

       process, are furthered by the allowance of a last minute request” to self-

       represent. Russell, 270 Ind. at 62, 383 N.E.2d at 314. Rather, “experience has

       shown that day of trial assertions of the self-representation right are likely to

       lead to a rushed procedure, increasing the chances that the case should be

       reversed because some vital interest of the defendant was not adequately

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023        Page 9 of 14
       protected.” Id., 383 N.E.2d at 314. 3 Given the untimeliness of the motion to

       withdraw and the dangers and drawbacks of self-representation, we cannot say

       that the trial court’s summary denial of counsel’s last-minute motion was an

       abuse of discretion. 4

       Section 2 – Sufficient evidence supports the CHINS
       adjudications.
[19]   Father also argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the CHINS

       adjudications. As we review his argument, we are mindful that appellate courts

       generally “grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters.” In

       re E.K., 83 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied (2018). “This

       deference recognizes a trial court’s unique ability to see the witnesses, observe

       their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court’s only

       being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Id. In determining whether

       sufficient evidence supports a CHINS determination, an appellate court does

       “not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility[.]” Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d at

       1208. Instead, “[w]e consider only the evidence that supports the trial court’s

       3
         Father relies on cases that involved the right to counsel rather than the right to self-representation. These
       rights are not treated similarly, and therefore we find Father’s cases inapplicable. See Russell, 270 Ind. at 59-
       60, 383 N.E.2d at 312-13 (explaining that right to counsel and right to self-representation encompass different
       interests and accordingly do not require the same standard for relinquishment of these rights).
       4
         Father also argues that the trial court failed to adequately provide its reasons for its disposition, and that
       that failure, along with the court’s alleged error in denying him the right to self-represent, renders the CHINS
       adjudications improper. Appellant’s Br. at 14. Because we have found no error in the trial court’s denial of
       Likes’s motion to withdraw, we need not address Father’s argument regarding the court’s reasons for its
       disposition.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023                              Page 10 of 14
       decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d

       1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012).

[20]   “Because a CHINS proceeding is a civil action, 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). Pursuant to Indiana

       Code Section 31-34-1-1, a child is a CHINS where sufficient evidence

       establishes the following elements:

               (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:

                        (A) when the parent, guardian, or custodian is financially
                        able to do so; or

                        (B) due to the failure, refusal, or inability of the parent,
                        guardian, or custodian to seek financial or other
                        reasonable means to do so; 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 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023           Page 11 of 14
       In sum, the evidence must establish that the “parent’s actions or inactions have

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

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

       In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283,1287 (Ind. 2014).

[21]   “[T]he purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not punish

       parents.” N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. Our supreme court has cautioned that “[n]ot

       every endangered child is a child in need of services, permitting the State’s

       parens patriae intrusion into the ordinarily private sphere of the family.” S.D., 2

       N.E.3d at 1287. “State intrusion is warranted only when parents lack the ability

       to provide for their children.” In re N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519, 524 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2017). “Moreover, when determining whether a child is a CHINS under section

       31-34-1-1, and particularly when determining whether the coercive intervention

       of the court is necessary, the juvenile court ‘should consider the family’s

       condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.’” Id.

       (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1290).

[22]   Father argues that the State failed to establish that the Children needed care,

       treatment, or rehabilitation that they were not receiving and that were unlikely

       to be provided or accepted without the court’s coercive intervention. He

       contends that the Children were living with Grandmother, who was providing

       for all their needs, and that he would have arranged for the Children to live

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023     Page 12 of 14
       with Grandmother while he was incarcerated without the State’s intervention. 5

       Father asserts that the Children could be cared for by Grandmother “based

       upon the parties’ willingness, a change in the custodial order in their paternity

       cases … by agreement of the parties, a temporary guardianship,” or pursuant to

       Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-25, which applies to emergency placement of a

       child. 6 Appellant’s Br. at 21.

[23]   At the time the case was filed and at the factfinding hearing, Father was

       incarcerated due to his OWI arrest, his second in less than a year, and was

       unable to care for the Children. By her own admission, Mother is homeless. 7 By

       Father’s own admission, the Children would not be safe with Mother in her

       current condition. Although Father contends that he would willingly leave the

       Children in Grandmother’s care while he is incarcerated, there is nothing to

       prevent Mother from removing the Children from Grandmother’s care because

       Grandmother does not have legal custody. The legal actions Father suggests to

       5
        Father also contends that the dispositional order violated the least restrictive mandate in Indiana Code
       Section 31-34-19-6 because he and Grandmother willingly agreed to Grandmother’s care of the Children
       during his incarceration, and “the least restrictive alternative is that the [C]hildren would have been placed
       with [Grandmother] based upon the willingness of all parties, as the family had done in the past.”
       Appellant’s Br. at 19. This is just a reframing of his argument that the coercive intervention of the court was
       unnecessary, and therefore we do not address it independently.
       6
        Section 31-17-2-25 permits a person other than a parent to seek a custody determination or a modification
       of custody when a custodial parent dies or becomes unable to care for the child and to obtain emergency
       custody pending a final determination.
       7
         Father notes that the predispositional report states, “[The children] are placed with grandmother in the
       same community with mother living in the home.” Appellant’s Br. at 19 (quoting Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at
       42). He contends that the evidence does not support that Mother lived with Grandmother, as Mother testified
       that she was homeless. Given that both Mother and Father testified that Grandmother was an appropriate
       caretaker and neither had any objection to the Children being in her care, the error is inconsequential.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023                              Page 13 of 14
       grant Grandmother some sort of temporary custody over the Children were not

       independently pursued by any of the parties. Father suggests that the court,

       DCS, or the guardian ad litem could have pursued these possibilities, but this

       merely shows that the State’s intervention is necessary. 8

[24]   Furthermore, based upon its initial intake assessment, DCS recommended that

       the Children each have counseling, and as a result, counseling sessions had

       been scheduled. Although Father testified that he had taken the Children to

       counseling on his own in 2020 or 2021, neither Father nor Mother currently has

       the ability to take the Children to counseling. Father contends that

       Grandmother would take the Children to counseling, but there is no evidence

       that Grandmother would arrange for counseling independent of the counseling

       sessions scheduled through DCS. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to

       establish that the coercive intervention of the court is necessary. Accordingly,

       we affirm.

[25]   Affirmed.

       Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

       8
         Father’s reliance on N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519, is misplaced. There, the allegations supporting the CHINS
       petition involved only the mother’s neglect. The child was placed with the noncustodial father, and by the
       time of the factfinding hearing, the father had obtained a custody order and DCS had no concerns about
       placement with him. On appeal, we concluded that the coercive intervention of the court was unnecessary
       because the child could not be returned to mother’s care without a court order. Id. at 525.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-1285 | November 21, 2023                           Page 14 of 14