MEMORANDUM DECISION
Statement of the Case
[1] L.W. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile courts determination that his minor son, C.W. (“Child”), is a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”).
1
Father raises a single issue for our review, which we restate as whether the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) presented sufficient evidence to support the courts judgment. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In November of 2019, C.W. lived with Father. On November 25, DCS received a report of possible neglect of C.W. by Father at Fathers residence. DCS investigated and determined that C.W. had been engaged in self-harm, that Father had been drinking to the point of not being able to “function for the next few days,” and that Father had not been obtaining “proper mental health treatment” for Child. Appellants App. at 15. DCS filed a petition alleging Child to be a CHINS.
[3] At an ensuing fact-finding hearing on DCSs petition, Child testified that, while in Fathers care, he had been admitted into a mental-health facility for self-harm and feeling depressed. Upon his release, providers recommended follow-up care, but the follow-up care did not happen. Child is also diabetic, and at the hearing he testified that Father had withheld essential medicine and supplies for that condition, which was “life threatening” to Child. Tr. Vol. II at 42. DCS Family Case Manager Katie Laloux also testified that Father had refused to cooperate with her, and, at times, he was “very hostile” toward her. Id. at 34.
[4] Following DCSs initial intervention, Child began living with his mother. Since then, he has been able to keep his mental-health appointments, and his mental health has “never been better.” Id. at 41. He has also had no issues with any of his diabetes medication. He has visited with Father twice—the first visit ended early because Father became “belligerent,” and, when Child arrived for the second visit, he found all of his belongings “packed up.” Id. at 43.
[5] The juvenile court found Child to be a CHINS due to Fathers failure to provide Child necessary mental-health care and Fathers interference with Childs diabetes medication. Thereafter, the court entered its dispositional order for Father to engage in services. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Father appeals the juvenile courts determination that Child is a CHINS. The courts order determining Child to be a CHINS was based on findings of fact and conclusions thereon following an evidentiary hearing. In such appeals, we reverse only if the courts judgment is clearly erroneous. J.M. v. Ind. Dept of Child Servs. (In re N.C.), 72 N.E.3d 519, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Findings are clearly erroneous when there are no facts in the record to support them; a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id.
[7] Father asserts on appeal
2
that DCSs evidence at the fact-finding hearing that Fathers behavior had endangered Child was insufficient because “Father was adept” at helping Child with his diabetic condition and because Father was “immediately” responsive to Childs mental-health issues. Appellants Br. at 10-11. Father further argues that “the evidence in this matter ․ revealed that ․ C.W. became unhappy with [living with Father], and wanted to live with” his mother instead, and that the court erred when it apparently did not consider that possibility. Id. at 11-12. Finally, Father asserts that the juvenile courts judgment is based on nothing more than “Fathers demeanor.” Id. at 12.
[8] Fathers arguments are not consistent with our standard of review and are not persuasive. The juvenile court found that Father had failed to provide for Childs mental well-being and had interfered with Childs diabetes medication. Those findings are supported by the evidence, especially Childs own testimony. And the courts conclusion that Fathers actions endangered Child are supported by those findings. Father simply seeks to have this court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. We affirm the juvenile courts determination that Child is a CHINS.
[9] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Childs mother did not contest the CHINS petition in the juvenile court and does not participate in this appeal.
2
. Fathers summary of his argument in his brief on appeal appears to be inconsistent with his actual argument and, as such, we disregard his summary.
Najam, Judge.
Pyle, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.