MEMORANDUM DECISION
Brown, Judge.
[1] S.W. (“Father”) appeals the trial courts determination that R.W. (“Child”) was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). We affirm.
1
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Father and R.P. (“Mother,” and together with Father, “Parents”) are the parents of Child who was born in August 2009. When Child was ten or eleven years old, she was diagnosed with ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder. During a period of time, Child lived with her paternal grandmother who began having problems with Child including Child physically beating her. In November 2022, Child began living with Father. At some point, Father started working with the “Wrap Around Program.”
2
Transcript Volume II at 9. Beginning in August 2023, Father called the police several times regarding Child hitting him and being a runaway or “[a] combination.” Id. at 17.
[3] On December 19, 2023, Father discovered that Child sent nude photographs to a nineteen-year-old male.
3
Father and Child had a physical altercation, and Father called Mother.
4
The next morning, Father sent Mother a message telling her to “get [her] fing kid because its already started again.” Id. at 67. Mothers boyfriend picked up Child. After Mother arrived home from work, Child complained of throat and neck pain and stated that it hurt to breathe. Child had bruising on her neck, a scratch on her face, bruising on her arm, and a slight bruise on her cheekbone. Mother called Father and told him she was taking Child to the hospital because she was complaining about not being able to swallow and was sore. Father told Mother that she “better not take [Child] to the hospital.” Id. at 70. Mother took Child to the hospital and made a report with the Department of Child Services (“DCS”).
[4] On December 21, 2023, DCS filed a petition alleging Child was a CHINS. DCS alleged that it became involved with the family on December 19, 2023, due to allegations of physical abuse by Father, Child had a large scratch and bruising on her neck, Child reported that her neck and throat hurt, and Father texted Mother that he was “going to beat [Childs] ass.” Appellants Appendix Volume II at 28. DCS asserted that: Father admitted that he grabbed Child by the throat and took her to the ground; Father refused to meet with DCS to discuss Child and placement on December 20, 2023; Mother stated that Father has a history of using methamphetamine and opiates; Father and Child “get in fights often”; Father has told Child that the handgun in his room is “loaded and ready to go”; and Father had been heating the house with the gas stove and a fan as there was no heat in the home. Id.
[5] After an initial hearing, the court entered an order on December 21, 2023, which observed that DCS had placed Child in Mothers care, accepted DCSs recommendation regarding placement, and ordered Child to remain in Mothers care and custody. On February 15, 2024, the court held a factfinding hearing. DCS presented the testimony of Parents, Family Case Manager Ashley Pierre (“FCM Pierre”), and Family Case Manager Brianna Marshall (“FCM Marshall”).
[6] On February 16, 2024, the court entered an Order on Factfinding Hearing finding it was unable to determine whether Childs injuries occurred because Father was defending himself or administering inappropriate force in disciplining Child, such an issue was irrelevant, and the court focused on Fathers inability to resolve the issue without violence. It found that Father refused to engage in therapeutic parenting time with Child; Childs physical and mental condition was seriously impaired and endangered as a result of Fathers inability to supply her with necessary supervision; Father refused to engage in therapeutic parenting time with Child; and Child needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that she was not receiving and which was unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. On March 18, 2024, the court held a dispositional hearing and entered a Dispositional Decree as to Father.
5
Discussion
[7] Father asserts that he previously sought the same services provided to Child and Mother after Childs removal and that the coercive intervention of the court was not required. He also contends that his use of force was reasonable and fell within the parental discipline privilege.
[8] In reviewing a trial courts determination that a child is in need of services, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and consider only the evidence which supports the courts decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (Ind. 2014), rehg denied. We apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 1287. We will reverse a CHINS determination only if it is 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. Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1 provides:
A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes eighteen (18) years of age:
(1) the childs physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the childs 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.
The statute does not require a court to wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene. In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, a child is a CHINS when the child is endangered by parental action or inaction. Id.
[9] To the extent Father does not challenge the trial courts findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.
[10] The record reveals that Father admitted that he was offered to meet with Child and a psychiatrist but he was not interested in talking to a psychiatrist. FCM Pierre indicated that Child still needed therapy and services because of trauma surrounding the relationship with Father and the need to build a relationship with Mother. She also placed a referral for therapeutic supervised visits, and Father refused to participate. While Father began setting up services with Wrap Around, FCM Marshall indicated that “the goal of Wrap Around is to involve the whole family.” Transcript Volume II at 121. She mentioned that Child could benefit from family therapy and yet Father refused to attend a therapeutic visitation. FCM Marshall found a separate agency to facilitate supervised visits, and Father did not want to participate in those visits. She explained that the reasons for supervised visitation involved the physical abuse allegations and to have a third party present to ensure the visit goes well. She encouraged Father to call the Bowen Center and set up visits, but no visits occurred. In a text message, Father wrote to FCM Marshall: “Im not even entertaining the idea of supervised visits ․” Exhibits Volume III at 188. When asked if Father had participated in any sort of parenting through Wrap Around, FCM Marshall answered: “Not to my knowledge.” Transcript Volume II at 111. FCM Marshall believed that “if the services are not court ordered then [Father] will not participate in them.” Id. at 114. FCM Marshall also indicated that court intervention would assist Father with obtaining parenting skills.
[11] We acknowledge Fathers action in involving Wrap Around services and the fact that his physical altercation with Child was in response to a dangerous situation created by Child. However, in light of the multiple calls to law enforcement, the injuries suffered by Child, and Fathers refusal to attend therapeutic visitation and supervised visits, we conclude the trial courts judgment is not clearly erroneous.
6
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.
[13] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. We observe that the Notice of Completion of Clerks Record was noted in the chronological case summary on April 8, 2024, which occurred after the entry of the dispositional decree. Thus, the dispositional decree was entered prior to our acquisition of jurisdiction. See Ind. Appellate Rule 8 (“The Court on Appeal acquires jurisdiction on the date the Notice of Completion of Clerks Record is noted in the Chronological Case Summary.”). We also note that Fathers March 15, 2024 notice of appeal, which listed the February 16, 2024 order as the appealed order, was filed prior to the March 18, 2024 dispositional hearing and dispositional decree. While Fathers notice of appeal was premature, DCS does not request this Court to dismiss the appeal, and we elect to address the merits of Fathers arguments. See In re D.J. v. Ind. Dept of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 578-580 (Ind. 2017) (observing that a trial courts finding of CHINS status is a mere preliminary step to final disposition of the matter; holding that a CHINS determination, by itself, is not a final judgment; stating that “[b]y filing notices of appeal from a non-final CHINS determination—and not a final CHINS judgment—[parents] forfeited their rights to appeal”; holding that, “[a]lthough it is never error for an appellate court to dismiss an untimely appeal, the court has jurisdiction to disregard the forfeiture and resolve the merits”; and concluding that, “[g]iven the purpose of our appellate rules, our preference for deciding cases on their merits, our Court of Appeals precedent, and the important parental interest at stake, we choose to disregard [parents’] forfeiture and reach the merits”).
2
. At the February 15, 2024 hearing, DCSs counsel asked Father: “So June you started with Wrap Around.” Transcript Volume II at 11. Father answered affirmatively. DCSs counsel later asked: “And I think Ive already heard you say that its taken about six (6) months or so since June and Wrap Around had only just started in December, right?” Id. at 16. Father answered affirmatively.
3
. The State later charged the nineteen-year-old male with multiple felony counts.
4
. The Whitley County Sheriffs Department investigated the December 19th altercation. Father was not charged in relation to the altercation.
5
. Fathers notice of appeal requested a transcript of only the February 15, 2024 hearing, and the record does not contain a transcript of the March 18, 2024 hearing. The record also does not contain a copy of the March 18, 2024 Dispositional Decree as to Father.
6
. In support of his argument, Father cites In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014), rehg denied. That case involved a child who needed particular medical care, and the Court found the fact that the single mother of four other children attempted but failed to complete one step of a home-care simulation did not support an inference that the mother was likely to need the courts coercive intervention to finish the home-care simulation. 2 N.E.3d at 1286-1290. These facts are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Brown
Judges May and Pyle concur.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.