MEMORANDUM DECISION
May, Judge.
[1] R.P. (“Mother”) appeals the adjudication of D.M.F. and S.C.P. (collectively “Children”) as Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). She argues the trial courts findings do not support its conclusion that Childrens mental or physical conditions were seriously impaired or endangered by Mothers action or inaction and that Children needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that Mother was unable to provide without the intervention of the trial court. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother has two children
1
- D.M.F., born October 30, 2009, and S.C.P., born November 11, 2010. The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) first became involved with the family in August 2022 based on several allegations. DCS received a report that Mother and Mothers husband, T.P. (“Husband”), were using drugs in the home. In addition, Children were regularly absent from school, and when they did attend, they often were tardy. D.M.F. “had thoughts of hurting herself” that resulted in inpatient treatment at a mental health facility. (Tr. Vol. II at 8.) S.C.P. also had behavioral issues at school, including sending “inappropriate pictures on his school device” and “masturbating in class.” (Id. at 8-9.) Finally, D.M.F. told DCS investigators that Mother “pushed her into a metal piece, into a freezer” and beat her with “a metal belt with rings on it[.]” (Id. at 8.)
[3] Based on the DCS investigation, Mother agreed to an Informal Adjustment. However, during the Informal Adjustment, Mother continued to use methamphetamine, and domestic violence occurred in the home. DCS began giving Mother drug tests in November 2022, and those tests often came back positive. DCS deemed the Informal Adjustment unsuccessful and filed a petition alleging Children were CHINS on April 28, 2023, because of Mothers drug use.
[4] In early May 2023, police were dispatched to the familys residence to investigate a report of domestic violence. The officer observed Husband with a fresh scratch on his arm, but Husband would not tell the officer how he got the scratch. Police returned to the residence later that evening in response to another call reporting a domestic violence situation. No one was arrested and no charges were filed because of either incident. Husband later told DCS service providers that Mother “beat on him[.]” (Id. at 41.) Mother denied doing so and instead indicated Father “had hit her with some things from a shelf and that his injuries he did himself it wasnt her.” (Id.) On May 7, 2023, DCS amended its CHINS petition to include allegations of domestic violence in the home.
[5] The trial court held an initial hearing on the CHINS petition on May 16, 2023. In its May 18, 2023, order on the hearing, the trial court authorized DCS to remove Children from Mothers care and allowed Children to stay with Husband at a relatives home. The trial courts order forbade Mother from having unsupervised visits with the Children, but despite DCSs prohibition, Mother and Husband still arranged for Mother to have unsupervised visits with Children. D.M.F. reported Mother slapped Husband in the face during one of those visits.
[6] Mother and Husband participated in family preservation services, though they did so inconsistently. The treatment facilitator, Kristy Gale, observed, “theres a lot of, um, blaming I guess, theres a lot of tension, like in their communication, um, a lot of times just yelling to talk between the kids and the parents[.]” (Id. at 39.) Children would “sometimes throw things at each other, sometimes hit each other.” (Id. at 50.) In addition, Mother did not take responsibility for her role in the state of the family and told Gale that all of the problems were due to Husbands mental health issues. Gale was unable to resolve the safety concerns within the family. On June 21, 2023, DCS closed out the referral for family preservation services, removed Children from Husbands care, and placed them in relative care, where they have remained.
[7] Thereafter, DCS offered Mother supervised visitation, child family team meetings, home based case management, and a substance abuse assessment. Mother initially participated in these opportunities but has not done so since June 2023. When Mother did attend supervised visitation with Children, she was late and was not engaged with Children. Instead, she was “vaping during parenting time” and engaged in “excessive cell phone use” during visitation. (Id. at 53.) In addition, Mother refused to continue her participation in drug screens after her drug screen on June 20, 2023. That drug screen was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, and Mother admitted she used the drugs.
[8] The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on August 8, 2023. At that time, Mother had participated, since November 2022, in nineteen of the required twenty drug screens. Seventeen of those drug screens were positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mother told the trial court she used methamphetamine as “[a]n escape route” from “emotions and stress[.]” (Id. at 21.) She claimed to be drug free, but her sobriety could not be confirmed based on her refusal to submit to a drug screen. The DCS Family Case Manager testified Mother had been arrested in “April, May” of 2023 and had a pending charge for possession of methamphetamine. (Id. at 87.) Court Appointed Special Advocate Amanda Lawson voiced concerns for Childrens well-being if they were returned to Mothers care because Mother had not taken recent drug screens to demonstrate her sobriety. Lawson noted that in placement Children were “no longer bickering back and forth like they were in the home ․ [and] theyre more relaxed.” (Id. at 108.)
[9] Based on the evidence, the trial court adjudicated Children as CHINS on August 8, 2023, because the “substance abuse and domestic disputes by [Mother and Husband have] seriously endangered/seriously impaired [Children] ․ [and Children] are in need of treatment and rehabilitation that will not be provided without the coercive intervention of the Court as demonstrated by current unwillingness to participate in services.” (App. Vol. II at 81.) On September 21, 2023, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. On September 29, 2023, the trial court issued its dispositional order, which required Mother to, among other things, refrain from consuming illegal substances, complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all recommendations therefrom, complete random drug screens, refrain from committing acts of domestic violence, and attend supervised visitation with Children.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Because a CHINS proceeding is a civil action, DCS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010). DCS alleged Child was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1, which states:
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.
[11] A CHINS adjudication focuses on the needs and condition of the child, rather than the culpability of the parent. In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d at 105. The purpose of a CHINS adjudication is not to punish the parent but to provide proper services for the benefit of the child. Id. at 106. “[T]he acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention.” Id. at 105. “A CHINS adjudication can also come about through no wrongdoing on the part of either parent[.]” Id.
While we acknowledge a certain implication of parental fault in many CHINS adjudications, the truth of the matter is that a CHINS adjudication is simply that - a determination that a child is in need of services. Standing alone, a CHINS adjudication does not establish culpability on the part of a particular parent. Only when the State moves to terminate a particular parents rights does an allegation of fault attach. We have previously made it clear that CHINS proceedings are “distinct from” involuntary termination proceedings. The termination of the parent-child relationship is not merely a continuing stage of the CHINS proceeding. In fact, a CHINS intervention in no way challenges the general competency of a parent to continue a relationship with the child.
Id. (citations omitted).
[12] When a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law in a CHINS decision, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re Des. B., 2 N.E.3d 828, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We consider first whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. We give due regard to the trial courts ability to assess witness credibility and do not reweigh the evidence; we instead consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment. Id. We defer substantially to findings of fact but not to conclusions of law. Id.
[13] Mother argues the trial court erred when it adjudicated Children as CHINS. She does not challenge the trial courts findings, and thus they are accepted as true. See Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“We accept unchallenged findings as true.”). Thus, we will examine whether the trial courts findings support its conclusions that Children were CHINS because their mental or physical condition was seriously impaired or endangered by Mothers action or inaction and that Children needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that Mother was unable to provide without the intervention of the trial court.
[14] In its order, the trial court concluded:
44) The Court finds that DCS has met its burden in proving the coercive intervention of the court is needed.
45) It is clear that [Children] have experienced significant problems, that [Children] suffer from their parents’ substance abuse issues and fighting, that [Husbands] behavior has been evasive at best, and that [Children] are both Children In Need of Services.
46) The Court finds a nexus between [Husband and Mothers] substance use and the negative impact on [Children]. The substance use and domestic disputes by parents has seriously endangered/seriously impaired [Children] as demonstrated by school attendance issues, [D.M.F.’s] inpatient hospitalization for suicidal ideation, [S.C.P.’s] masturbating in class, [S.C.P.’s] running away, and [D.M.F.’s] observing domestic violence between [Mother and Husband]. [Children] are in need of treatment and rehabilitation that will not be provided without the coercive intervention of the Court as demonstrated by current unwillingness to participate in services.
(Tr. Vol. II at 81.) The trial court made several findings to support those conclusions:
7) Elizabeth Lane, the School Counselor at Sand Creek Elementary, had contact with the family during the 2022-2023 school year. During that time, [Mother] had told Ms. Lane that [Husband] “beat the shit out of her” and Ms. Lane observed an injury around [Mothers] eye.
8) [Children] had issues with attendance. [Mother] withdrew [Children] from Sand Creek Elementary for a period of time, but then re-enrolled them. During their time of enrollment, [Children] had so many absences and tardies that the family had to be put on an attendance contract.
9) Ms. Lane worked with both children. Ms. Lane observed [D.M.F.] to be withdrawn and depressed. At one point, [D.M.F.] had to be hospitalized for suicidal ideation. Ms. Lane observed a scab on [D.M.F.] from where [Mother] had allegedly pushed [D.M.F.] into a freezer. [S.C.P.] also had issues in school at Sand Creek Elementary - at one point he was masturbating in class.
10) [D.M.F.] had made many concerning statements to Ms. Lane that were reported to DCS. Ms. Lane is concerned for the childrens safety in the care of [Mother and Husband].
11) Deputy Kyle Lee from the Jennings County Sheriffs Department responded to a call for a domestic dispute between [Husband and Mother] in or around May 2023. Deputy Lee observed a fresh scratch on [Husbands] arm at the time of his response. [Husband and Mother] were not cooperative in the investigation. The Sheriffs Department had been at the familys residence for domestic disputes both before and after the incident that Deputy Lee responded to. There has been a history of domestic dispute responses at [the familys] address. There was a child present on the property when Deputy Lee responded to the domestic dispute call.
12) [Mother] began using methamphetamine at 19 years old and continued to use methamphetamine throughout the Informal Adjustment provided to the family prior to the current CHINS petition.
13) [Mother] testified that she has been clean for a few months and that her substance abuse is not a problem due to her alleged sobriety. This Court does not find [Mothers] claim credible as [Mother] was not able to provide the Court her sobriety date, does not have a sponsor or sobriety chips despite stating she goes to NA/AA meetings, and has not provided any drug screens since her last positive drug screen that was collected June 20, 2023.
14) [Mother] admits she was arrested recently.
15) [Mother] also states that [Husband] is a paranoid schizophrenic and that she knows that because [Husband] told her.
16) [D.M.F.] has had suicidal ideations [sic] and was in the ER.
17) [S.C.P.] has ran [sic] away before.
18) [Mother] admitted that there is a court order stating that she must only have supervised parenting time.
19) [Mother] denies physical altercations between her and [Husband], but had [sic] accused [Husband] of throwing a book shelf at her in communication with NYAP [National Youth Advocate Program] service providers. (DCS Exhibit 2)
* * * * *
22) Kristy Gale from NYAP was a treatment facilitator for the family before [Children] were removed from both parents. Ms. Gale described inconsistent participation from the parents in that it was difficult to meet with them due to [Husbands] work schedule, parents’ lateness, or the fact that they just wouldnt be there. Ms. Gale observed there to be a lot of blaming, arguing, and tension in communication amongst the [ ]family when she was working with the family.
23) Ms. Gale would also communicate with [Husband and Mother] via text. Ms. Gale identified DCS Exhibit 2 as a group text message that included herself and [Husband and Mother] on June 5, 2023. Within the texts, [Husband] writes, “And so its no secret [Mother] had the cops called again today for beating me up” to which [Mother] responds “No I didnt lay a hand on you you threw [a] movie shelf at me [and] blood[ied] my knuckles” followed by pictures of what appears to be injuries on [Husbands] face and [Mothers] knuckles. Ms. Gale identifies DCS Exhibit 3 as another text conversation from June 5, 2023 that included herself and [Husband and Mother] displaying the contentiousness of the relationship. Ms. Gale identifies DCS Exhibit 4 as text messages between herself and [Mother] where [Mother] is asking how to leave and Ms. Gale suggests inpatient rehab to which [Mother] responds, “I dont need rehab what I need is out of here he not all innocent he makes you all think that but he [is] not Im over him making it all seem to be me its not” “I need out of here or he needs to go get help I dont need to go anywhere Im not the problem. He is the problem I cant go get help for him he has to I would be fine and be able to do what I need if he would go get help cause him thinking Im doing shit Im not is the whole problem [he is] schizophrenic and all is the problem if he wont go get help then we cant solve the issue cause its going to keep happening when he refuses to go get help. He wants me to go to rehab well its not me that needs to go anywhere its him that needs to go I will be good to go if he just goes and gets help like he needs not me.”[ ]
24) Ms. Gale identifies parents’ ongoing aggression and continuous substance use as [concerns] relating to [Children].
25) Ms. Gale observed physical altercations between [Children] during her time with the family.
26) Family Preservation through NYAP stopped because [Children] were removed from the home and at that time, concerns with the family unit had not been resolved.
27) Perre Bryant from NYAP is a Family Services Coordinator and worked with [Mother] in parenting education. During an assessment completed for the parenting education, [Mother] was found to be high risk for lack of empathy. Ms. Bryant worked with [Mother] to try to address the issue but [Mother] failed to implement the skills taught to her.
28) Ms. Bryant also supervised visits for the family after the removal. [Mother] was late for every scheduled visit, and [Husband] participated in visits minimally as he arrived for the last 10 minutes of one, the last 15 minutes of another, and then the last hour of another out of the five visits offered to him. Ms. Bryant witnessed severe arguing between the family that included yelling and cursing.
29) [Husbands] counsel argued that [Husbands] limited engagement is due to his work schedule. However, [Husband] is self-employed, and no proof of a “schedule” was presented.
30) Rachel Bennett, a therapist with NYAP, worked with the family in their home on goals like communication, bonding and listening beginning in January of 2023. Ms. Bennett observed the family to argue a lot during sessions. Ms. Bennett also observed the parents struggling to keep the arguing away from the children. Ms. Bennett observed the arguing to occur in front of [Children] and said that [Children] seemed to try to stay out of the way.
31) During therapy, [Mother and Husband] placed blame on [D.M.F.] and accused her of lying while [D.M.F.] was present. Ms. Bennett believes that [Children] are affected greatly by the family discord as the family struggles to get along, the family lives in a small space, and [Children] routinely see their parents fighting.
32) Ms. Bennett observed [S.C.P.] to shut down and [D.M.F.] to struggle with anger and depressed mood. At one point, Ms. Bennett described [D.M.F.] as being “quite sad” and “near tears” in a session with Ms. Bennett.
33) [D.M.F.] had reported to Ms. Bennett that she had seen [Mother and Husband] hitting each other in a truck.
34) Donald Duis, a licensed substance abuse counselor with Take Back Control, worked with [Mother] beginning in February 2023. Goals of [Mother] becoming drug free were established. Mr. Duis described [Mothers] participation as “below average” and [Mother] was unsuccessfully discharged do [sic] to noncompliance. [Mother] reported to Mr. Duis that [Husband] is her trigger for drug use. Mr. Duis recommended that [Mother] complete inpatient drug treatment. [Mother] went to inpatient drug treatment but did not stay. It is the opinion of Mr. Duis that [Mother] was engaged in any treatment at all only because of DCS involvement. Mr. Duis reports [Mother] denied drug use at the beginning and that [Mother] needs inpatient drug treatment.
35) Mark York, CEO, of Step In Step Up Inc. received a referral from DCS to work with [the family]. Mr. York personally reached out to [Mother] via text message on July 21, 2023 (DCS Exhibit 10) to engage in services. [Mother] responded, “No thanks unless I can do it myself I dont want no dcs referral cause that means Im in need of services when I am not”.
36) DCS Family Case Manager, Laurie Hamby, began working with the family beginning around October of 2022 when the family initially participated in an Informal Adjustment with DCS. FCM Hamby was the Family Case Manager for the family until June 2023 when the case was transferred to FCM Kelly Watkins. DCS was not able to close involvement with the family due to ongoing safety concerns that included substance abuse and domestic violence.
37) [Husband and Mother] have documented involvement with methamphetamine as long ago as 2012. [Husband] has convictions for aiding in the manufacturing of methamphetamine and neglect of a dependent from 2012 (DCS Exhibit 9). [Mother] has a conviction for aiding in the manufacturing of methamphetamine from 2012 (DCS Exhibit 8). Additionally, [Mother] has a pending charge for possession of methamphetamine in cause number 40C01-2304-F6-000077.
* * * * *
39) [Mother] has been given approximately 20 drug screens and most of them returned positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine (DCS Exhibits 5A and 5B).
40) [Mother] has admitted her drug use in the past to FCM Hamby. [Husband] has denied his use, but [Mother] has admitted to FCM Hamby that [Husband] uses methamphetamine sometimes.
41) At one point when FCM Hamby was the case manager for the family, this Court restricted [Mothers] access to [Children] and left them in the care of [Husband]. During that time, [Husband] had [Children] go to a family member and had [Mother] stay in the home with him.
42) [Mother] claims to have been sober for three months but tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine on a drug screen collected from [Mother] on June 20, 2023, and FCM Kelly Watkins has offered drug screens to both parents since obtaining the case but parents have not screened.
(Id. at 77-81.)
Mothers argument on appeal focuses on various aspects of her testimony that she believes portray her in a positive light. For instance, she notes her testimony regarding her actions to address some of the issues involving Children, such as assuring school attendance as part of the Informal Adjustment, taking D.M.F. to the hospital when she expressed suicidal ideation, and S.C.P.’s masturbation at school being “an isolated incident.” (Mothers Br. at 13.) She also contends that the reported domestic violence incidents never got physical, but DCS presented photographs and text messages from Mother that prove otherwise. Finally, she asserts that while the trial court was free to discredit her testimony regarding her sobriety, DCS did not submit evidence of her drug use after June 20, 2023, as Mother refused to take drug screens after that date. However, Mother continued to use methamphetamine throughout the Informal Adjustment and after the CHINS petition was filed, and she was arrested for possession of methamphetamine shortly before the CHINS fact finding hearing.
[15] Mother did not participate in several services offered to improve her parenting skills and address her substance abuse issues. She has not demonstrated the trial courts findings do not support its conclusions. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err when it adjudicated Children as CHINS. Contra Matter of E.K., 83 N.E.3d 1256, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (reversing CHINS adjudication because DCS did not prove coercive intervention of the court was necessary when parents had made great strides in addressing the issues that resulted in CHINS investigation, retained custody of their children, and were actively participating in treatment), trans. denied; and see Matter of L.T., 145 N.E.3d 864, 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (child endangered and needs unmet based on history of domestic violence and physical abuse of child and older siblings).
Conclusion
[16] The trial courts findings support its conclusions that Childrens mental or physical condition was seriously impaired or endangered by Mothers action or inaction and that Children needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that Mother was unable to provide without the intervention of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts adjudication of Children as CHINS.
[17] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Children have different fathers. D.M.F.’s father, S.R., stipulated prior to the fact finding hearing that D.M.F. was a CHINS. S.C.P.’s father is T.P., and the trial court also adjudicated S.C.P. as a CHINS as it pertained to T.P. Neither father participates in this appeal.
Memorandum Decision by Judge May
Judges Vaidik and Kenworthy concur.
Vaidik, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.