MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[1] A.J. (Mother) appeals the trial courts determination that her nine-year-old son L.J. (Child) is a child in need of services (CHINS). In making this determination, the trial court found that Mother both physically abused Child and neglected Child by failing to supervise him for prolonged periods of time. Mother argues that the abuse finding is based solely on inadmissible hearsay and that the inadequate supervision finding is not supported by the record. We conclude the alleged error in the abuse finding is harmless because sufficient, independent evidence supports the inadequate supervision finding. As Mothers failure to supervise Child in turn supports the CHINS determination, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Mothers history with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) dates back nearly 20 years and includes, among other things, four prior CHINS cases. The first two cases, initiated in 2005 and 2010, predated Childs birth and only involved Childs older sister (Sibling). The third CHINS case involved Sibling and Child. It began in 2015, after Mothers third child, a newborn, died while in Mothers care. Mother was intoxicated at the time, registering a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%. All three of these CHINS cases closed successfully.
[3] Mothers fourth CHINS case arose in 2018, after Mother struck Sibling and bit Siblings ear in the presence of Child. As a result of the altercation, DCS removed Sibling and Child from Mothers care and filed petitions alleging the children were CHINS. Sibling went to live with “someone else” and never returned to Mothers care. Tr. Vol. II, p. 111. The CHINS case as to Child successfully closed in 2021.
[4] Mother was next involved with DCS in September 2022, when DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Sara Wood assessed a report of excessive alcohol consumption by Mother and related neglect of Child. FCM Wood interviewed Child, who confirmed that Mother had a drinking problem. However, Child also explained that he stayed with his maternal grandmother (Grandmother) most of the time. According to Child, most of his belongings were at Grandmothers home, and he felt safe and cared for there. FCM Wood attempted to contact Mother during the assessment, but Mother refused to cooperate. After ensuring that Child was safely in Grandmothers care, FCM Wood closed the assessment.
[5] The current CHINS case—Mothers fifth—began in December 2022. Child was at Grandmothers home when FCM Wood received a report that Mother had been abusing and neglecting Child. At the same time, Mother called police alleging that Grandmother refused to return Child to Mothers care. As a result, FCM Wood interviewed Child at Grandmothers home in the presence of two police officers. The officers’ body cameras recorded the interview.
[6] During his interview with FCM Wood, Child reported that Mother whipped him with a “Hot Wheels track” toy the previous Thursday, whipped him another time with a phone charging cord, and choked him twice in the last few months. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 77-78. Child also reported that Mother left him home alone while she worked 12-hour, overnight shifts the previous Saturday and Sunday. Though there was food in the house, Child stated he did not know how to prepare it. Child added that he almost always goes to bed hungry at Mothers home and is afraid Mother will whip him if asks for anything.
[7] Ultimately, DCS took emergency custody of Child, placed him in relative care, and filed a petition alleging he was a CHINS due to Mothers physical abuse and failure to supervise Child. After a detention hearing, the trial court determined there was probable cause to continue Childs out-of-home placement.
[8] Child soon underwent a forensic interview, during which he again described being physically abused by Mother. According to Child, Mother smacked, punched, and choked him on various occasions and once hit him in the testicles with a purse full of coins. Child also described Mother as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and being abusive when she drinks.
[9] Child later underwent a psychological evaluation, during which he reported that Mother had been “whoop[ing]” him “with various weapons” since he was five or six years old. Exhs. Vol. I, p. 8. According to Child, the “most painful” weapon used to punish him was “a purse filled with loose quarters.” Id. Child also reported being left home alone for long periods of time without access to food he could prepare on his own.
[10] Childs psychological evaluation was conducted by Amber Perkins, Psy.D., a post-doctoral clinician employed through Groupworks Psychological Association. After the evaluation, Dr. Perkins prepared and signed a hearsay evaluation report in which she concluded: “It is the opinion of this examiner that [Child] will likely suffer substantial emotional or mental harm as result of testifying in court.” Id. at 9. The report was also signed by Dr. Perkinss supervisor, Tony Sheppard, Psy.D., a licensed psychologist.
[11] Before the fact-finding hearing, DCS notified Mother that it intended to offer into evidence the statements Child made during the forensic interview and hearsay evaluation. DCS contended the statements were admissible under Indianas Child Hearsay Statute, which requires, in pertinent part, that a “psychologist has certified that the childs participation in the proceeding creates a substantial likelihood of emotional or mental harm to the child.” Ind. Code § 31-34-13-3(2)(C)(i).
[12] To satisfy the statutes certification requirement, DCS pointed to Dr. Sheppards signature on Dr. Perkinss hearsay evaluation report. Mother, however, argued that Dr. Sheppards signature alone was not sufficient, emphasizing that he neither conducted Childs psychological evaluation nor prepared the report thereon. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court concluded Dr. Sheppards signature on the report was sufficient and that the statements Child made during his forensic interview and psychological evaluation were admissible.
[13] At the fact-finding hearing, over Mothers objection, the trial court admitted into evidence the statements Child made during the forensic interview and psychological evaluation. The court also admitted, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the police officers’ bodycam footage of Childs statements to FCM Wood. Testifying in her own defense, Mother accused Grandmother of coaching Childs statements and denied the allegations of abuse and neglect.
[14] The trial court found Childs statements credible and Mothers denials not credible. The court therefore concluded, among other things, that Childs physical or mental health is seriously endangered by Mothers inability to provide the child with “necessary supervision” and “shelter free from violence.” App. Vol. II, p. 134. Ultimately, the court adjudged Child a CHINS and, after a dispositional hearing, ordered Child to remain in his relative care placement while Mother participated in services. Mother appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Admissibility of Child Hearsay
[15] Mother first argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence Childs statements during the forensic interview and psychological evaluation. We conclude any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless.
[16] “The admission of evidence is a matter entrusted to the trial courts sound discretion,” and “[w]e will reverse an evidentiary ruling only on a showing of an abuse of discretion. In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). But errors in the admission of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights of a party. In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d 828, 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). To determine whether the admission of evidence affected a partys substantial rights, we assess the probable impact of the evidence upon the finder of fact. Id.
[17] Here, the trial court determined Child is a CHINS for two reasons: Mothers inability to provide Child with (1) “necessary supervision”; and (2) “shelter free of violence.” App. Vol. II, p. 134. Childs statements during the forensic interview and psychological evaluation almost exclusively evidenced Mothers acts of violence toward Child. And as explained below, DCS presented sufficient, independent evidence to prove Child lacked necessary supervision. Thus, assuming the trial court erroneously admitted the statements Child made during the forensic interview and psychological evaluation, the evidence did not impact the courts ultimate CHINS determination. The alleged error therefore did not affect Mothers substantial rights.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[18] Mother next argues that DCS presented insufficient evidence to support the trial courts CHINS determination. In a CHINS proceeding, “the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1253 (Ind. 2012). Here, DCS alleged Child was a CHINS under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1, which our Supreme Court has interpreted to require “three basic elements: that the parents actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child, that the childs 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).
[19] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a CHINS determination, “[w]e neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. “We consider only the evidence that supports the trial courts decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. And “[w]e reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous.” Id.
[20] The trial court determined Child is a CHINS, in part, because of Mothers inability to provide Child with necessary supervision. This conclusion is supported by the police bodycam footage, admitted pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, on which Child told FCM Wood that Mother left him home alone for prolonged periods of time without food he can prepare. Mothers only argument to the contrary is that “FCM Wood ․ did not speak with anyone else such as a neighbor to confirm whether the Child was left alone.” Appellants Brief, p. 30. We decline this request to reweigh the evidence. See In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253.
III. Probable Cause for Removal
[21] As for Mothers argument that DCS lacked probable cause to remove Child from her care without a court order, the issue is moot.
[22] The Indiana Code authorizes a DCS caseworker to temporarily take a child into custody without a court order when there is “probable cause to believe the child is a [CHINS]” and, among other things, “it appears that the childs physical or mental condition will be seriously impaired or seriously endangered if the child is not immediately taken into custody.” Ind. Code § 31-34-2-3(1). Child, however, is no longer in DCS custody pursuant to this emergency-based statutory authority.
[23] After being temporarily removed by DCS under Indiana Code § 31-34-2-3, the trial court timely held a detention hearing and ordered Childs continued removal under Indiana Code § 31-34-5-3. Moreover, after being adjudged a CHINS, the court again continued Childs removal via a dispositional decree issued under Indiana Code § 31-34-20-1. Mother did not challenge the trial courts detention order, and she does not now challenge the courts dispositional decree.
[24] An issue is moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court. Matter of A.C., 198 N.E.3d 1, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. Because Childs removal from Mothers care is no longer based on DCSs probable cause determination, no relief is available to Mother based on any alleged error in that determination. See id. (finding trial courts detention order mooted parents’ challenge to courts earlier detention order).
Conclusion
[25] We affirm the trial courts CHINS determination.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann
Chief Judge Altice and Judge Kenworthy concur.
Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.