MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] S.H. (Mother) and T.H. (Father) (collectively, Parents) jointly appeal the trial courts order adjudicating their minor children, Ni.H., Na.H., and T.H. (the Children), as Children in Need of Services (CHINS). They argue that the evidence is insufficient to support the adjudication.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Parents have three children together: Ni.H. (born June 23, 2014), Na.H. (born July 6, 2016), and T.H. (born October 27, 2020). Mother also has an adult daughter, A.N., who was born in 2004. Parents met in California while attending law school. They married in 2009. The family moved to Indiana around 2013 and then to Hawaii in 2018. In November 2022, Parents returned to Indiana with the Children while A.N. stayed in Hawaii.
[4] In April 2023, the Indiana State Police (ISP) became involved in an investigation of Parents for possession of child pornography, child molestation, and incest. A.N. had contacted authorities to report that she was raped by her maternal uncle and that Mother made a video of the incident, which Mother then made A.N. repeatedly watch throughout her childhood. A.N. also reported that Mother would masturbate while fondling A.N.’s genitals. As to Father, A.N. reported that between the ages of five and seventeen, Father vaginally and anally raped her and that he often used force by choking her and pinning her against the wall. She also claims that Father raped her while they were in the bathtub together.
[5] As concerning the Children, A.N. reported that she had observed Father fondling the genitals of Ni.H. and Na.H. when he was in the bathtub with them and that this occurred when they were under two years of age. She stated that she witnessed Father anally rape Ni.H. after a bath. She explained that Father would lay a towel on a bed and that after the incident she observed blood on the towel. She also reportedly observed Mother having sexual intercourse with Ni.H. She told law enforcement that Mother and Father often took photographs and videos of the Children engaging in sexual activity and that they exchanged these photographs and videos using their cell phones.
[6] Based on A.N.’s allegations, ISP obtained a search warrant for Parents’ home. ISP also filed a report with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) alleging that the Children were victims of sexual abuse. On May 2, 2023, Family Case Manager Alex Peacock (FCM Peacock) accompanied ISP Detective Sergeant Chris Tucker (Sgt. Tucker) to execute the warrant. During the search of the home, Mother volunteered to Sgt. Tucker that she believed law enforcement was there because she had looked at an internet image of a baby doll with a vagina and mouth open. After the search was completed, Mother told FCM Peacock that she took photos and videos of the Children while they were naked and that the family bathed together. Father was not present when the search began but eventually arrived on foot. He did not have his cell phone in his possession, despite law enforcement having contacted him on his phone during the search.
[7] In total, ISP seized from the home fifty-nine line items, some of which included multiple electronic devices such as hard drives and cell phones. At the scene, digital forensic examiners conducted an initial search of some of the electronic devices, during which they found nude photographs of the Children and Parents, as well as videos of one or more of the Children in a state of nudity in the bathtub with Father, who was also in a state of nudity. FCM Peacock did not view any of the images or videos, but nevertheless determined it was necessary to remove the Children from Parents’ care on an emergency basis. The Children were placed with family friends.
[8] Following their detention, forensic interviews of Ni.H. and Na.H., who were nine and seven years old respectively, were conducted. Ni.H. and Na.H. each separately stated that they bathe together and sometimes with Parents. Ni.H. stated that Na.H. would sometimes touch his penis, demonstrating such touches as a quick pat or poke with a palm or fingertip. Ni.H. stated that he would sometimes touch Na.H. in the same manner. Ni.H. stated that Parents take pictures of the Children when they are doing something cute and that this includes times when they are naked. Na.H. denied ever seeing Parents take pictures or videos of him while he was in the bathtub. Ni.H. denied ever being touched in a way he did not like and that the only secrets he knew to keep were secrets about surprises and gifts.
[9] On May 4, 2023, DCS filed petitions alleging that the Children were CHINS based on Ind. Code § 31-34-1-4 (obscene performance); I.C. § 31-34-1-3 (sex offenses); and I.C. § 31-34-1-1 (neglect). The court held a detention hearing and found detention was necessary to protect the Children. At a family team meeting held on May 25, 2023, Parents would not discuss the allegations, refused to participate in a psycho-sexual evaluation, and requested that the Children not be provided with any information as to why they were removed from Parents’ care.
[10] Parents were provided supervised visits with the Children. Melanie Joubert served as the visitation supervisor and prepared reports evaluating Parents on six different criteria for each visit.
1
Joubert consistently rated Parents as “Adequate” or “Strong” on all six criteria. See Exhibits Vol. 4 at 31-85 (Exhibit F). She observed no significant safety issues during the visits. Joubert did note that Father was “very affectionate” with the Children and that he often touched the Children by tickling, prolonged hugs, leaning into them, rubbing their back and arms, prolonged kissing, and playing with their hair. Transcript Vol. 2 at 172. She also noted that Father did not always respect a childs preference regarding degree of affection as he would persist in touching a child even if the child said no, exhibited obvious disinterest, or failed to reciprocate.
[11] DCS arranged for the Children to have individual therapy on a weekly basis. During face-to-face therapy with Sarah Ash, Ni.H. disclosed that his siblings would touch his private parts but that such touching ended when he was removed from Parents’ care. Ash noted that Ni.H. exhibited behaviors indicating he was “extremely uncomfortable” with this line of questions. Id. at 191. When Ash asked Na.H. the same question about his private parts being touched by someone, she noted that Na.H. “looked shocked and surprised” and he “avoided eye contact.” Id. at 189.
[12] On June 5, 2023, Parents submitted to forensic psychological examinations with Dr. Felicia Meyers. After her individual evaluations of Mother and Father, Dr. Meyers determined that neither parent met the diagnostic criteria for any mental health condition and neither exhibited a sexually maladaptive psychopathology. Dr. Meyers was of the opinion that the Children exhibited a healthy attachment to both Mother and Father, and she recommended that the family be reunited.
[13] The court held a fact-finding hearing on July 3, July 21, and August 29, 2023. DCS expressed its concern about the amount and nature of the videos and pictures of the Children that were in Parents’ possession. At the hearing, A.N. testified as to the allegations she made regarding Mothers and Fathers conduct toward the Children. DCS also submitted a “representative sample” of photos and videos depicting the Children and/or Mother or Father in a state of nudity.
2
Transcript Vol. 2 at 119. At the time of the hearing, digital forensic examiners with ISP were still processing the electronic devices that were seized from Parents’ home as the devices contained several terabytes of data. The court also heard from Sgt. Tucker, FCM Peacock, Joubert, Ash, and Dr. Meyer, as well as Mother and Father. On September 20, 2023, the court entered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law adjudicating the Children to be CHINS. The court held a dispositional hearing on October 13, 2023, and entered a dispositional order on October 19, 2023.
[14] Parents now appeal. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[15] A CHINS proceeding is a civil action that requires DCS to 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). On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses and will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial courts decision. Id. Further, we grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters in recognition of the trial courts unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony. In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556, 561-62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.
[16] When a trial court supplements a CHINS judgment with findings of fact and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. We consider, first, “whether the evidence supports the findings” and, second, “whether the findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). We will reverse a CHINS determination only where clearly erroneous. K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. 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.” Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997).
[17] The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to “protect the children, not punish parents.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). The proceeding thus focuses on “the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or innocence as in a criminal proceeding.” Id. Trial court judges are often faced with the challenge of balancing multiple factors and multiple voices in a CHINS case. At the fact-finding hearing, the sole issue before the court is whether the child is a CHINS based upon the criteria in the CHINS statutes. T.Y.T. v. Allen County Div. of Family & Children, 714 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
[18] DCS must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the child is under eighteen; (2) one of eleven different statutory circumstances exist—I.C. §§ 31-34-4-1 through 11—that would make the child a CHINS; and (3) the care, treatment, or rehabilitation needed to address those circumstances is unlikely to be provided or accepted without coercive intervention of the court. K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1253. Here, the only issue is whether the evidence sufficiently establishes an alleged statutory circumstance.
[19] DCS alleged and the court determined that the Children were CHINS under three different CHINS statutes—I.C. § 31-34-1-4, -3, and -1. Only one of these statutory circumstances need be established by sufficient evidence to affirm the courts CHINS determination. We consider only Section 3, which provides, as pertinent to this case, that a child is a CHINS if, before the child becomes eighteen years of age the child is the victim of child molesting, child exploitation, or vicarious sexual gratification. I.C. § 31-34-1-3(a)(1)(C-E). Under subsection (c), a child is a CHINS if, before the child becomes eighteen years of age, the child “lives in the same household as another child” who is a victim of an offense listed under (a)(1).
[20] Here, the trial court set out the evidence in support of finding the Children were victims of child molesting, child exploitation, or vicarious sexual gratification. With respect to a finding of child molesting, the trial court considered A.N.’s testimony that she had witnessed Father engage in sexual intercourse and other sexual conduct with Ni.H., in conjunction with evidence that Parents and the Children all sleep in one bedroom, that Ni.H. had stated that someone touched his private parts who was not supposed to, Na.H.’s reaction to the same question, and the nature of the sample of pictures and videos taken from the family home. As to child exploitation, the court noted the broader scope of what constitutes sexual conduct
3
and found that some of the photos submitted as evidence rose to the level of exhibition of uncovered genitals of Ni.H. and Na.H. in a sexually suggestive manner. Finally, the trial court found evidence supporting vicarious sexual gratification in A.N.’s testimony when considered in light of the other evidence submitted to the court, such as the amount and nature of the videos and pictures retrieved from Parents’ home.
[21] The trial court weighed this evidence against Mother and Fathers testimony denying any sexual abuse and the lack of physical or medical evidence. The court also addressed Parents’ challenges to A.N.’s credibility. The court expressly found A.N.’s testimony to be credible, citing her demeanor while testifying, her detailed testimony, the corroboration of certain details of her testimony, and the lack of any clear and convincing motive for A.N. to falsify her testimony. The court also made findings that it did not find Mother and Fathers testimonies to be entirely credible, citing their demeanor and conduct during the proceedings.
4
Considering the evidence as a whole, the court found that “it is more likely than not that sexual abuse to Children has occurred,” and therefore, the Children are CHINS pursuant to I.C. § 31-34-1-3(a) and (c). Appellants’ Appendix Vol. II at 165.
[22] Having reviewed the entire record and giving due deference to the trial court, we cannot say that the trial courts CHINS adjudication is clearly erroneous. The trial court expressly set out its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, a matter which we will not second-guess. We further note that this is not a criminal matter where each element of an offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but rather, a CHINS adjudication is a civil matter and CHINS status must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Our review is limited to whether the trial courts CHINS adjudication is clearly erroneous.
[23] As noted by the trial court, A.N. testified that she witnessed both Father and Mother having sexual intercourse with Ni.H. A.N.’s testimony, considered in conjunction with the sheer volume and nature of photos and videos taken from Parents’ home, Ni.H.’s disclosure that someone touches his private parts and that he and Na.H. touch each others private parts with Parents’ full knowledge, and the sleeping arrangements observed by the family is sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that sexual abuse of one or more of the Children has occurred in the home. We therefore affirm the trial courts adjudication of the Children as CHINS.
5
[24] Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The criteria included whether Parents (1) demonstrated a parental role, (2) responded appropriately to verbal and nonverbal signals of the Children, (3) demonstrated knowledge of each childs development, (4) showed empathy towards the Children, (5) put the Childrens needs above his/her own, and (6) focused on the Children in preparing for and during interactions.
2
. Sgt. Tucker testified that the number of items seized was “an astronomical amount.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 117. One device alone – a 1-terabyte iPhone – contained over 800,000 images and over 15,000 videos. Although only a few pictures and videos were introduced into evidence, a digital forensic examiner testified that a “significant amount” of the photos and videos contained nudity of the Children and Parents. Id. at 143. The photos and videos admitted into evidence were created in or around 2016.
3
. For purposes of the child exploitation statute, sexual conduct is defined, in pertinent part, as: “exhibition of the: (i) uncovered genitals ․ intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person.” I.C. § 35-42-4-4(5).
4
. The court noted that Parents “conducted themselves in a manner that continuously made the Court uncomfortable.” Appellants’ Appendix Vol. II at 152. Specifically, the court noted that Parents laughed at “wholly inappropriate times” and “repeatedly ignore[ed] basic decorum,” resulting in several admonishments from the court. Id.
5
. Having found that the CHINS adjudication under Section 3 is not clearly erroneous, we need not address Parents’ challenges to the trial courts obscenity determination under Section 4 or neglect determination under Section 1.
Memorandum Decision by Chief Judge Altice
Judges Bailey and Mathias concur.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.