Court Opinion

ID: 9897351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:30.497236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:07.931921
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                            Jun 30 2023, 9:08 am

                                                                                CLERK
                                                                            Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                               Court of Appeals
                                                                                 and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT H.P.                                 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
(MOTHER)                                                    Theodore E. Rokita
Jane A. Noblitt                                             Attorney General of Indiana
Columbus, Indiana                                           Robert J. Henke
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT D.P.                                 Director, Child Services Appeals
(FATHER)                                                    Unit
                                                            Indianapolis, Indiana
R. Patrick Magrath
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP
Madison, Indiana

                                             IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of:                                           June 30, 2023

D.P. (Minor Child),                                         Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                            22A-JC-2836
Child in Need of Services,
                                                            Appeal from the Jennings Circuit
H.P. (Mother) and D.P. (Father),                            Court
                                                            The Honorable Murielle S. Bright,
Appellants-Respondents,
                                                            Judge
        v.                                                  The Honorable Christopher
                                                            Doran, Magistrate
Indiana Department of Child                                 Trial Court Cause No.
Services,                                                   40C01-2207-JC-30

Appellee-Petitioner.

                             Opinion by Judge Kenworthy
                       Judge Crone and Senior Judge Robb concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                                   Page 1 of 23
      Kenworthy, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report alleging

      possible abuse and neglect of four-year-old D. (“Child”), the son of D.P.

      (“Father”) and H.P. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”). During the DCS

      investigation, some concerns were resolved, and others arose. Ultimately, the

      trial court determined Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”).

      Parents separately appeal the trial court’s determination, but both essentially

      claim the trial court clearly erred in adjudicating Child a CHINS. Concluding

      there was no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   Child was born November 28, 2017. On May 4, 2022, DCS received a report

      Child “was seen with marks and bruises. He’s non-verbal and unable to

      communicate what happened to him[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 151. 1 The report also said

      Father “was arrested the beginning of [2022] for Possession of

      Meth[amphetamine] and . . . there was no sober caregiver in the home.” Id.

      DCS caseworker JoAnn Miller began an investigation that eventually ruled out

      1
       On DCS’ motion, we consolidated Father’s and Mother’s separate appeals under this single cause number.
      Before the cases were consolidated, however, a transcript was prepared and filed for each parent’s appeal.
      We have cited the transcript originally filed in cause number 22A-JC-2836.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                              Page 2 of 23
      physical abuse 2 and focused instead on Parents’ substance abuse and their

      ability to be safe and sober caregivers for Child.

[3]   Parents were uncooperative from the outset and, in late May, DCS sought and

      obtained an order compelling Parents to allow DCS into their home, give DCS

      access to Child, and provide drug screens. On DCS caseworkers’ third attempt

      to serve the order, Mother finally allowed them into the home, but Child was

      not there. Parents had taken him to a relative’s home because they knew DCS

      would be coming, but Mother gave caseworkers the address and they were able

      to visit Child there.

[4]   Mother submitted to an oral drug screen at that time, but Father refused.

      Father only submitted to an oral drug screen after he was held in contempt in

      June and ordered to immediately submit to a drug screen or be jailed for ten

      days. While those samples were being tested, Child remained in Parents’ care.

[5]   In late June, DCS was called because Child had been found wandering alone

      about one-half mile from his rural home at 1:30 in the morning. Mother was

      asleep when Child left the house; Father was at a friend’s house. Neither

      Parent was aware Child was missing until after he had been found. This was

      the second time Child left a residence without Parents’ knowledge while in their

      care—the first time he left a relative’s home during a family barbeque. DCS

      2
          Child was diagnosed with an iron deficiency that explained the marks and bruises.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                       Page 3 of 23
      caseworker Ida Mae Craney met with Parents and discussed a safety plan to

      make the house more secure.

[6]   During the investigation, DCS learned Father had pending criminal charges in

      two counties: (1) in Jennings County, Father was charged with possession of

      methamphetamine, possession of paraphernalia, and operating a motor vehicle

      with false plates, and (2) in Jackson County, Father was charged with Level 2

      felony dealing in methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. The

      Jackson County charges arose from a February 2022 traffic stop where Father,

      the passenger, was found with over thirty grams of methamphetamine in his

      socks and underwear. DCS also learned Father had previously resolved

      charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of paraphernalia, and

      operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license. Although Father

      pleaded guilty only to the motor vehicle charge—not the substance-related

      charges—Father’s probation was revoked in 2021 because he tested positive for

      methamphetamine.

[7]   DCS received Mother’s drug-screen results in early June and received Father’s

      results on July 6. Both screens were positive for methamphetamine. The day

      after receiving Father’s drug-screen results, DCS sought an emergency

      detention order. The trial court entered the order the same day, and DCS took

      custody of Child on July 9. Child was initially placed in a foster home.

[8]   The trial court found probable cause Child was a CHINS and authorized DCS

      to file a CHINS petition. The petition alleged Child was a CHINS in part

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023       Page 4 of 23
       because: (1) Parents tested positive for methamphetamine after submitting to

       court-ordered drug screens; (2) Parents’ substance abuse “has a negative impact

       on their ability to parent as they are not able to supply adequate supervision”;

       (3) Father has pending drug charges in multiple counties; (4) Child has a “high

       level of needs” and a tendency to put things in his mouth, “creating an elevated

       risk of serious harm if there were to be methamphetamine, paraphernalia, or

       other substances in the home”; and (5) the coercive intervention of the court is

       necessary because Parents demonstrated “an almost unparalleled lack of

       cooperation with DCS[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 39. 3 At an initial/detention

       hearing on July 11, Parents denied the allegations of the petition.

[9]    In the two months between the initial and fact-finding hearings, Child was

       placed with his paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”). Parents visited Child

       regularly, but continued to refuse to cooperate with DCS, including refusing to

       submit to requested drug screens.

[10]   The trial court held a CHINS fact-finding hearing on September 6, 2022.

[11]   DCS offered the testimony of Dr. Aaron Brown, the Scientific Director at the

       laboratory that tested Parents’ drug screens. Mother’s screen was positive for

       151.8 ng/ml of methamphetamine. Father’s screen was positive for greater

       than 1000 ng/ml of methamphetamine. Dr. Brown explained an oral sample is

       3
        As with the transcript, the consolidated appeal contains two appendices, one filed by Father and one filed
       by Mother. We have cited the appendix originally filed in cause number 22A-JC-2836.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                                Page 5 of 23
       considered positive for methamphetamine at 10 ng/ml. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 101. 4

       Mother’s results were “far enough above the cut-off” to be consistent with use

       of methamphetamine rather than “something such as secondary or

       environmental exposure[.]” Id. at 104. The lab did not report a specific

       concentration for Father’s sample because the level of methamphetamine was

       higher than the concentration range the lab tests for, in which case the industry

       standard is to report results as “greater than” the limit. Id. at 103. To a

       “reasonable degree of scientific certainty,” Dr. Brown stated Parents used

       methamphetamine within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of providing the oral

       sample. Id. at 104.

[12]   Father acknowledged the results of his June 2022 drug screen showed a

       concentration “so high [it was] off the charts of what the lab is able to test for,”

       but claimed the last time he used methamphetamine was “last year.” Id. at 32.

       He attributed the results to “[h]aving [DCS] come in [his] life.” Id. at 33.

       Father—who was thirty-five years old at the time of the hearing—first said he

       did not know when he started using methamphetamine, then said it was “[l]ast

       week,” id. at 31, then claimed it was when he was thirty years old. Father

       explained why he did not submit to another DCS drug screen: “I don’t think I

       should have to do any, . . . because the whole allegations [sic] was me beating

       4
        Both Mother and Father also tested positive for amphetamine. Dr. Brown explained methamphetamine
       converts into amphetamine as it metabolizes but the process “does not go back the other way.” Id. at 109. In
       other words, if a person has ingested methamphetamine, both methamphetamine and amphetamine will be
       present in a drug screen, but if a person has ingested amphetamine alone, there will not be any
       methamphetamine present. See id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                               Page 6 of 23
       on my child. That’s the whole reason why we’re here.” Id. at 33. When asked

       if he thought his substance use affected his ability to be a safe and sober

       caregiver for Child, he replied, “Not one bit.” Id. at 34. He started a substance-

       abuse treatment program the year before as ordered in a criminal case but did

       not complete the program and was not in any treatment program as of the fact-

       finding hearing.

[13]   Mother said she started using methamphetamine when she was twenty-eight—

       her age at the time of the fact-finding hearing. She testified she “never really

       used any before” DCS intervention, and denied using methamphetamine before

       Child was removed, despite the positive result from the May 2022 drug screen.

       Id. at 117. She claimed she had used methamphetamine only once, after Child

       was removed, but also told caseworkers she would test clean in two days if they

       returned Child to her care. Mother said “nobody else watches [Child]” except

       herself, Father, and now Grandmother and acknowledged Child needs to be

       supervised closely. Id. at 114. Father works outside the home, so Mother has

       been Child’s full-time caregiver. But Mother did not think her substance abuse

       affected her ability to be a safe and sober caregiver because “it has nothing to do

       with [Child].” Id. at 121. Mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder “[w]hen

       [she] was little.” Id. at 148. She does not see a therapist and refused to say

       whether she takes medication “because that has nothing to do with this.” Id. at

       147. Mother was not concerned about Father’s pending criminal charges

       related to possession of more than thirty grams of methamphetamine: “[I]t was

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023         Page 7 of 23
       not around [Child] or me. It was not in our home or in our vehicles.” Id. at

       128.

[14]   As for the night Child got out of the house, Father said “[t]he mother was

       sleeping and he snuck out.” Id. at 37. Father explained he had gone to a

       friend’s house after work that night—which could have been anywhere from

       1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.—and was coming home around 1:30 a.m. when Child

       was found. Father denied using methamphetamine at his friend’s house that

       night. Mother conceded Child needs to be watched closely to “make sure he

       doesn’t get out[.]” Id. at 113. Parents said they had cameras and an alarm in

       their home even before Child got out, but asserted they followed the safety plan

       Craney discussed with them, adding alarms and extra door locks to their home.

       They did not notify DCS they made those safety upgrades because they “didn’t

       think [they] had to[,]” id. at 131, and did not let DCS into their home to observe

       the changes.

[15]   Both parents visited Child at Grandmother’s regularly. Mother was there every

       day, usually from the time Child got up to the time he went to bed. Father

       visited after he got off work at least every other day. Grandmother testified she

       has not seen signs of drugs or alcohol when Parents visit: “I know when my

       son’s not acting right . . . [and] I didn’t know [Mother] even messed with

       [drugs] at all[.]” Id. at 86–87. Grandmother told DCS caseworkers she

       believed Parents would “get clean to get [Child] back.” Id. at 87.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023       Page 8 of 23
[16]   When asked why Child was removed from his care, Father said, “I have no

       clue.” Id. at 30. Mother believed the only reason Child was removed was

       “over child abuse and neglect because of the bruising. . . . [T]here was no other

       reason why he should’ve been taken.” Id. at 114. Father admitted he had

       offered “[z]ero” cooperation to DCS. Id. at 56. Father repeatedly expressed his

       unwillingness to participate in any services “because [he] didn’t ask for [any]

       help” and “really honestly” did not think he would benefit from substance-

       abuse services. Id. at 59. Similarly, Mother said she had been “doing

       everything a mom should do, but no, I am not going to cooperate with [DCS.]”

       Id. at 125. She would only take court-ordered drug screens because she felt “it’s

       a[n] invasion of [her] privacy, invasion of [her] rights” for DCS to request

       screens. Id. Mother denied she had a substance-abuse problem and claimed a

       substance-abuse program “is not necessary.” Id. at 121.

[17]   Miller, who began the DCS investigation, testified concerns for Child’s safety

       still existed even after DCS received an explanation for the bruising.

       Independently, Miller observed signs of drug use in Father such as frequent

       pacing and a tendency to be high-strung in their interactions. The fact that

       Child “constantly is putting things in his mouth” concerned Miller because if

       methamphetamine was in the home, Child “could easily get into the

       substances[.]” Id. at 167. Miller testified Child “definitely needs supervision at

       all times” and requires “a sober caregiver who can be responsive” to his “pretty

       high level of needs[.]” Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023        Page 9 of 23
[18]   Craney took over as the caseworker on July 29. Craney testified a parent who

       is using methamphetamine is unable to provide adequate supervision, and

       especially so in this case because Child “doesn’t talk very much [so] he can’t

       say if he’s being hurt, no one’s watching him, things like that.” Id. at 197. 5

       With Parents’ refusal to participate in subsequent drug screens, DCS had no

       way to verify whether Parents had stopped using methamphetamine. And

       because Parents had expressed their unwillingness to participate in services

       unless ordered by the court to do so, Craney believed Child is a CHINS.

       Child’s guardian ad litem, although praising Mother as “a wonderful mother,”

       also believed Child is a CHINS and the family could benefit from services: “I

       think my biggest concern is . . . substance abuse potentially happening in the

       home and [Child] not being able to express to us any concerns with that, so I

       would like to see some clean screens from [P]arents[.]” Id. at 212.

[19]   In adjudicating Child a CHINS as defined in Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1,

       the trial court entered a thorough and thoughtful order. The trial court’s

       notable findings can be summarized as follows: (1) without an assessment and

       subsequent drug screens, the court only had evidence of positive screens and

       could not know the extent of Parents’ substance abuse; (2) Parents “struggled

       with honesty” about their substance use, were not addressing it, and did not

       5
        The initial report to DCS said Child was autistic and non-verbal. However, there was no evidence of an
       autism diagnosis, although Mother had scheduled an evaluation for early 2023. And DCS acknowledged
       “non-verbal isn’t really the right term to describe [Child], but [it is] fair to say he can’t communicate as an
       average four and a half[-]year[-]old can.” Id. at 186. Mother referred to Child’s communication difficulties
       as a “speech delay.” Id. at 112.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                                  Page 10 of 23
       think it affected Child or their ability to provide a safe home for him, Appellant’s

       App. Vol. 2 at 83; (3) Child is a “high-needs child” who requires “sober and

       clearheaded” parents who can adequately supervise him at all times, id. at 83,

       88; (4) among the “significant risks” to Child are his inability to communicate

       whether he is safe and the possibility of medical consequences if he ingested

       methamphetamine, id. at 87; (5) Parents’ positive screens coupled with

       Mother’s testimony only she and Father previously provided care for Child

       means they cared for him while using methamphetamine; (6) parents who

       actively use methamphetamine cannot provide adequate supervision; (7) a

       “nexus exists between [P]arents’ substance [abuse] and [Child’s] safety”—the

       fact that Child managed to leave the home in the middle of the night despite

       existing cameras and alarms in the home is connected to a “dangerous lack of

       supervision and serious endangerment[,]” id.; and (8) coercive intervention is

       required because Parents have not allowed DCS into the home to observe their

       compliance with the safety plan, have not complied with requests for drug

       screens, and have expressed their unwillingness to cooperate with DCS.

[20]   Having determined Child was a CHINS, the trial court entered a dispositional

       order on November 1, 2022. Father and Mother now appeal.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023         Page 11 of 23
       Discussion and Decision
       Standard of Review

[21]   In a CHINS proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the

       evidence a child is a CHINS as defined by statute. 6 Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3

       (1997); see In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). When we review a

       CHINS adjudication for sufficient evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor

       judge witness credibility but consider only the evidence and reasonable

       inferences supporting the trial court’s decision. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577–

       78 (Ind. 2017).

[22]   Although “no statute requires special findings in a CHINS fact-finding order,”

       In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1288 (Ind. 2014), the trial court here entered sua

       sponte findings in its order on the fact-finding hearing. We will “not set aside

       the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous[.]” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A).

       As to issues covered by the findings, we review whether the evidence supports

       the findings and the findings support the judgment. S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.

       “Factual findings ‘are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or

       reasonable inferences to support them [and] . . . a judgment is clearly erroneous

       6
         Indiana Code Chapter 31-34-1 contains several sections defining when a child is a CHINS. The CHINS
       petition in this case alleged Child was a CHINS under Indiana Code Sections 31-34-1-1 (parental inability,
       refusal, or neglect to supervise) and 31-34-1-2 (parental act or omission seriously endangering child’s physical
       or mental health). Because the physical abuse allegation was resolved before the fact-finding hearing, DCS
       proceeded only on the neglect allegation. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 219 (DCS stating, “We are not asking the Court to
       find that [Child] was a victim of physical abuse but rather simply neglect.”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                                 Page 12 of 23
       when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and the conclusions relying on

       those findings.’” In re Adoption of T.L., 4 N.E.3d 658, 662 (Ind. 2014) (quoting

       In re T.W., 859 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)) (alteration in original).

       We review any issue not covered by the findings under the general judgment

       standard, meaning the judgment will be affirmed based on any legal theory

       supported by the evidence. S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.

       CHINS Adjudication

[23]   The purpose of a CHINS inquiry is to determine whether a child’s

       circumstances require services unlikely to be provided without court

       intervention. N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 106. Therefore, a CHINS adjudication

       focuses on the child’s condition rather than the parents’ culpability. Id. at 105.

[24]   The trial court found Child was a CHINS as defined in Indiana Code Section

       31-34-1-1 (2019). A CHINS adjudication under this section requires DCS to

       prove by a preponderance of the evidence:

               (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 . . . 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

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023        Page 13 of 23
                           (B) is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the
                           coercive intervention of the court.

       In other words, there must be sufficient evidence supporting three basic

       elements: Parents’ actions or inactions have seriously endangered Child, Child’s

       needs are unmet, and those needs are unlikely to be met without State

       coercion. 7 See S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. The last element guards against

       unwarranted State interference in family life because “[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.” Id. For this reason, when

       determining CHINS status under Section 31-34-1-1, courts should consider the

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

       D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580.

[25]   Because a CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child, “the acts

       or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court

       intervention.” N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105. In general, then, a separate analysis as

       to each parent is not required. Id. at 106. Although Parents filed separate

       appeals, they essentially argue the same thing: the trial court’s CHINS

       determination was clearly erroneous because DCS failed to prove (1) any

       parental neglect that seriously endangered Child, (2) Child had unmet needs, or

       (3) Child’s needs are unlikely to be met without State intervention. See Father’s

       7
           There is also an age element that is not in dispute here. See Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                          Page 14 of 23
       Br. at 10; Mother’s Br. at 10. They each acknowledge one positive drug test but

       argue there was no evidence they used or possessed methamphetamine in

       Child’s presence, cared for Child while under the influence of

       methamphetamine, or endangered Child by their use of methamphetamine. See

       Father’s Br. at 10; Mother’s Br. at 11.

[26]   Father and Mother both cite In re S.M., 45 N.E.3d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015),

       and In re Ad.M., 103 N.E.3d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), for the proposition that a

       trial court clearly errs in adjudicating a child a CHINS when “there is no

       evidence that the parents have ever used drugs in the presence of the children,

       or that there was ever an occasion in which they were impaired by substance

       abuse while the children were in their care[.]” Father’s Br. at 14 (quoting S.M.,

       45 N.E.3d at 1256); see Mother’s Br. at 12.

[27]   In S.M., four children were adjudicated CHINS after the youngest child’s

       meconium tested positive for marijuana. See 45 N.E.3d at 1253. The children’s

       mother admitted at the fact-finding hearing she used marijuana one time during

       her pregnancy, but testified she did not know she was pregnant at the time and

       did not use marijuana again after learning of the pregnancy. Within a month of

       the CHINS petition being filed, the mother began completing random drug

       screens approximately every two weeks, all of which were negative. The

       mother also completed a substance-abuse assessment. The assessor said the

       mother was “insightful” about her marijuana use and did not recommend any

       substance-abuse treatment. 45 N.E.3d at 1253–54. A panel of this Court

       reversed the trial court’s CHINS determination because DCS offered no

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023       Page 15 of 23
       evidence the children were endangered at any time, their needs were unmet on

       even a single occasion, or their needs would not be met without State coercion.

       Id. at 1256. The Court specifically noted a lack of evidence showing how

       marijuana-positive meconium endangers a child, or any occasion the mother

       was impaired by substance abuse while caring for the children.

[28]   In Ad.M., marijuana plants were found in the mother’s home, and she tested

       positive for marijuana twice after a CHINS petition was filed. 103 N.E.3d at

       711-12. A DCS case manager testified the mother was a “chronic” marijuana

       user but stated she “really can’t see the way [marijuana use] has impacted” the

       children. Id. at 713–14. Following the lead of S.M., the Court in Ad.M.

       concluded DCS failed to present sufficient evidence children had been seriously

       endangered for purposes of Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 because there was

       no “specific evidence that the marijuana itself or [the m]other’s use of it

       presented a serious danger to the [c]hildren.” Id. at 714.

[29]   These cases are easily distinguishable. The parent in S.M. admitted her one-

       time drug use and cooperated with DCS. Here, Parents did not admit to using

       methamphetamine despite their positive drug screens. Mother claimed she

       used methamphetamine only once—after Child was removed—and Father

       claimed he last used methamphetamine last year, but the trial court specifically

       found Parents’ testimony about their drug use lacked credibility. Parents

       exhibited no insight into their substance use, denying they have a problem with

       methamphetamine and believing their use of methamphetamine has nothing to

       do with Child or their ability to take care of him. Parents’ ongoing drug use can

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023        Page 16 of 23
       be inferred from testimony that Mother told DCS caseworkers “she’d test clean

       in two (2) days” if Child were returned and having Child back in her home

       “would make [her] be clean,” Tr. Vol. 2 at 119, and Grandmother believed

       Parents “will get clean” to get Child back, id. at 87. Further, Parents refused to

       cooperate with DCS while the CHINS petition was pending even when doing

       so could have eased DCS’ concerns.

[30]   And contrary to the lack of evidence of endangerment in Ad.M., there is

       evidence here Parents’ methamphetamine use presented a serious danger to

       Child. Father’s drug use has resulted in legal problems, including a Level 2

       charge of dealing in methamphetamine still pending at the time of the fact-

       finding hearing. Child has been observed to often put things in his mouth, so

       the presence of methamphetamine or any other drug in the home presents a

       particular danger to him. 8 Further, although no evidence suggests Parents used

       methamphetamine in Child’s presence, Mother is Child’s full-time caregiver

       and only she and Father watched Child prior to his removal. As Parents had

       positive drug screens before Child was removed, it is reasonable to infer they

       were using methamphetamine while caring for Child. Mother acknowledged

       8
         The State of Indiana’s 2021 Annual Report of Child Abuse & Neglect Fatalities in Indiana—the most
       recent report available—details sixty child fatalities attributed to caregiver abuse or neglect, with six of the
       children dying of drug overdoses (primarily fentanyl) and at least two of those children were observed putting
       loose drugs or paraphernalia in their mouths. State of Indiana, Annual Report of Child Abuse & Neglect
       Fatalities in Indiana (2021),
       https://www.in.gov/dcs/files/2021_Annual_Report_of_Child_Abuse_and_Neglect_Fatalities_in_Indiana.p
       df [https://perma.cc/KFS6-EPQJ]; cf. Ind. Evidence Rule 201 (permitting a court “at any stage of the
       proceeding” to take judicial notice of a fact that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources
       whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023                                 Page 17 of 23
       Child requires close supervision, yet Child was able to leave the family home

       undetected in the middle of the night. Craney testified parents using

       methamphetamine are unable to provide adequate supervision for children.

       When there is a lack of supervision and the home lacks adequate safety

       features, any child faces a danger—but especially this child in light of his special

       needs. Finally, the Ad.M. court concluded “evidence of one parent’s use of

       marijuana and evidence that marijuana has been found in the family home,

       without more, does not demonstrate that a child has been seriously endangered

       for purposes of Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1.” 103 N.E.3d at 713–14

       (emphasis added). Here, both Mother and Father tested positive for

       methamphetamine, and there was additional evidence of neglect beyond the mere

       use of the drug. Although Parents equate the marijuana use addressed in S.M.

       and Ad.M. with their methamphetamine use, there is evidence in this case of the

       specific dangers posed to Child by Parents’ methamphetamine use.

[31]   The sole finding (among fifty-two total findings) challenged on appeal by either

       Father or Mother is the following:

               49) Mother cites to In re K.S., 78 N.E.3d 740 (Ind. [Ct.] App.
               2017)[,] in her assertion that DCS has failed to meet its burden in
               proving [Child] is seriously endangered. However, in that case,
               [the m]other had used marijuana two months prior to the
               [c]hild’s birth and DCS did not present any evidence that the
               child was endangered. In the instant case, [Child’s] parents have
               used methamphetamine (a more dangerous drug) while actually
               caring for him and impacting their ability to care for [Child] and
               provide proper supervision. [Child] has been seriously

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023         Page 18 of 23
               endangered as evidenced by his escape from the home in the
               middle of the night.

       Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 88. Father takes issue with the statement

       “methamphetamine [is] ‘a more dangerous drug’” than marijuana because the

       trial court “offer[ed] no methodology by which to determine which is a ‘more

       dangerous drug[.]’” Father’s Br. at 15.

[32]   First, we note even if this isolated statement is erroneous, the rest of this finding

       as well as the other unchallenged findings support the trial court’s CHINS

       determination. See Kanach v. Rogers, 742 N.E.2d 987, 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)

       (“Superfluous findings, even if erroneous, cannot provide a basis for reversible

       error.”). The evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence show

       Parents used methamphetamine while caring for Child, their ability to

       adequately supervise him was affected, and he was endangered due to the lack

       of proper supervision.

[33]   In any case, whether or not methamphetamine is a “more dangerous” drug

       than marijuana, methamphetamine is no doubt a different drug than marijuana

       and should be treated as such. Methamphetamine is a “highly addictive drug

       with potent central nervous system . . . stimulant properties.” DEA Drug Fact

       Sheet, Methamphetamine at 1 (2022),

       https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2023-

       03/Methamphetamine%202022%20Drug%20Fact%20Sheet_1.pdf,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023         Page 19 of 23
[https://perma.cc/C7R7-XVLC]. 9 Methamphetamine causes effects similar to

cocaine. Id. at 2. But methamphetamine “has a much longer duration of

action, and a larger percentage of the drug remains unchanged in the body.”

National Institute on Drug Abuse (“NIDA”): Methamphetamine Research

Report at 6 (2019), https://nida.nih.gov/download/37620/methamphetamine-

research-report.pdf?v=59d70e192be11090787a4dab7e8cd390,

[https://perma.cc/PVM6-U36S]. In 2021, approximately 32,500 people died

from an overdose involving stimulants other than cocaine—“primarily

methamphetamine.” Id. at 4. In contrast, “[n]o deaths from overdose of

marijuana have been reported.” DEA Drug Fact Sheet: Marijuana/Cannabis

at 3 (2022), https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/Marijuana-

Cannabis%202022%20Drug%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf, [https://perma.cc/63W6-

7XRW]. And most importantly for this discussion, “[p]arents who use,

manufacture, and/or traffic methamphetamine in the presence of children put

their children at a higher risk of child abuse and neglect.” National Center on

Substance Abuse and Child Welfare: Supporting Children Affected by Parental

Methamphetamine Use at 1 (2021), https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/files/meth-tip-

sheet-children.pdf, [https://perma.cc/EF55-UPAK]. The 2021 Annual Report

of Child Abuse & Neglect Fatalities in Indiana reported methamphetamine was

involved in eleven of the sixty child deaths from caregiver maltreatment and

noted a history of substance abuse was most frequently cited as a stress factor

9
    See Evid. R. 201; supra n. 8.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023      Page 20 of 23
       among caregivers. State of Indiana, Annual Report of Child Abuse & Neglect

       Fatalities in Indiana (2021),

       https://www.in.gov/dcs/files/2021_Annual_Report_of_Child_Abuse_and_Ne

       glect_Fatalities_in_Indiana.pdf, [https://perma.cc/KFS6-EPQJ].

[34]   In sum, unlike S.D. and Ad.M., this is not a case of a single incident of

       marijuana use prompting DCS intervention. Nor is this even a case of a single

       incident of methamphetamine use but nothing more. See In re L.P., 6 N.E.3d

       1019, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (reversing a CHINS adjudication where DCS

       proved a single use of methamphetamine, there was no suggestion the use of

       methamphetamine took place in the presence of the child, and the parent

       voluntarily and consistently took drug screens with negative results); Perrine v.

       Marion Cnty. Off. of Child Servs., 866 N.E.2d 269, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

       (reversing a CHINS adjudication because “a single admitted use of

       methamphetamine, outside the presence of the child and without more, is

       insufficient to support a CHINS determination”) (emphasis added). This is a

       case of untreated methamphetamine use of unknown frequency and duration

       endangering a special-needs child’s safety and well-being.

[35]   The trial court’s unchallenged findings support this CHINS determination.

       Among them: Parents use methamphetamine; Child is a “high-needs child”

       who requires close supervision; as Child’s primary caregiver, Mother

       “necessarily” cared for him while using methamphetamine; Parents do not

       recognize their use of methamphetamine affects their ability to provide a safe

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023           Page 21 of 23
       home for Child; and a “nexus exists between [P]arents’ substance [use] and

       [Child’s] safety.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 87–88.

[36]   The family’s condition at the time of the fact-finding hearing had not improved

       since the CHINS petition was filed. See In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580–81

       (reversing CHINS determination where the trial court’s findings “amply

       support[ed] its conclusion” parents needed coercive intervention early in the

       CHINS proceeding but “certainly did not show [they] needed such

       intervention” by the time of the fact-finding hearing). There was evidence

       before the court Parents had used methamphetamine while caring for Child and

       did not appreciate the dangers Child faced because of their use. And given the

       trial court found Parents’ testimony about their methamphetamine use lacked

       credibility, there was no evidence Parents had stopped or were seeking to stop

       using methamphetamine. A court need not “wait until a tragedy occurs to

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

       Conclusion
[37]   DCS proved Child—a four-year-old, special needs toddler—has been seriously

       endangered by Parents’ methamphetamine use because their inability to

       supervise Child has already led to him leaving the home and roaming outside

       alone at night; Child needs care and supervision he is not receiving; and

       Parents’ lack of cooperation with DCS shows they are unlikely to provide the

       care and supervision Child needs without the coercive intervention of the court.

       The trial court’s CHINS determination is not clearly erroneous.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023      Page 22 of 23
[38]   Affirmed.

       Crone, J., and Robb, Sr. J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2836 | June 30, 2023   Page 23 of 23