Opinion
24A-JC-989
11-01-2024
In the Matter of I.C. and M.C. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner A.C. (Mother) and W.C. (Father), Appellants-Respondents
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Audrey Lunsford Law Office of Mark Nicholson Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana, David E. Corey Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Johnson Circuit Court The Honorable R. Kent Apsley, Special Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 41C01-2311-JC-62 41C01-2311-JC-63
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Audrey Lunsford Law Office of Mark Nicholson Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana, David E. Corey Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[¶1] In the presence of police and his children, W.C. (Father) threatened to shoot his wife, A.C. (Mother), and then retrieved a gun from the family home. Father was stopped by his then 16-year-old son, leading to a physical struggle over the loaded weapon. Mother and Father (collectively, Parents) now appeal the resulting determination that their two minor sons are children in need of services (CHINS). Though the family engaged in some counseling, Parents continue to deny the existence of domestic violence and have not completed the services required by the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS). Because the underlying issues remain unaddressed, the trial court did not err in finding the children's needs would not be met without court coercion. We affirm.
Facts
[¶2] Parents have three children: a now 18-year-old daughter, K.C., and two sons, 17-year-old I.C. and 12-year-old M.C. (collectively, Children). Throughout the couple's twenty years of marriage, police have responded to numerous domestic disputes between Parents, and later, between Father and I.C.
[¶3] The family's most recent altercation in late November 2023-when all three Children were still minors-arose after Mother left the family home following an argument. Mother told Father that she would return to retrieve her belongings, but Father called the police to prevent her from doing so. Father claimed Mother had "abandoned" the home and had no right to reenter. Tr. Vol. II, p. 169; Exh. 1G at 4:24-25. He also told the responding police officers: "If she breaks in, I will treat her like any other home invader." Exh. 1G at 7:0208. The officers advised against that, but Father insisted he had the right to defend his home.
Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence in seven parts: A-G. The digital files within Exhibit 1 are not labelled with their subparts. Consistent with the briefing of the parties, we refer to file B23-03564 Domestic (6) as "Exhibit 1E"; B23-03564 Domestic (7) as "Exhibit 1F"; and B23-03564 Domestic (8) as "Exhibit 1G."
[¶4] Mother arrived at the home and the argument continued, despite the presence of Children and multiple police officers recording the entire incident on their body-worn cameras. Father would not allow Mother to stay at the house, but Mother refused to leave without M.C. When Mother attempted to take the child, Father told M.C. to go to his bedroom, and once M.C. complied, Father shut and physically blocked the room's door. The argument then continued just outside M.C.'s room.
[¶5] As Parents argued, Mother told police about Father's prior abuse against her and Children. Mother asked I.C., who was in the room, to verify that Father had abused him. I.C. confirmed the allegation but told Mother he did not want to get involved. Meanwhile, Father told police that Mother was "mentally unstable" and had threatened to run herself off the road earlier that day. Exh. 1F at 1:51-54.
[¶6] The argument soon moved to the garage, where Father again physically blocked Mother from reentering the house. When Mother threatened to break a window to gain entry, Father said: "I'm getting a gun." Id. at 13:35-36. He then quickly went into the house, shut and locked the door behind him to prevent police from following, and retrieved a loaded semi-automatic rifle.
[¶7] Children saw Father carrying the gun. K.C. told Father the gun was "not necessary." Exh. 1E at 0:27-28. Then, I.C. attempted to disarm Father, resulting in a physical struggle over the loaded gun. K.C. ran outside "frantic" to get police. Tr. Vol. II, p. 173. When an officer entered the home, I.C. yelled, "He pulled a gun on me, help." Exh. 1F at 15:55-59. The struggle ended only after the officer pointed his service weapon at Father and I.C. and commanded them to drop the gun. Despite this escalation, Father continued to argue with police and deny Mother access upstairs, eventually letting an officer retrieve Mother's belongings so she could stay elsewhere that night.
[¶8] DCS was notified of the incident and began an assessment the following day. A Family Case Manager (FCM) interviewed Mother and Children. Mother cooperated and told the FCM that she planned to file for divorce, obtain a nocontact order against Father, and live with Children at a friend's home. That same day, Father filed for divorce.
[¶9] But just a week later, the family changed course: Father moved to dismiss the divorce petition, and the family moved back into their house together. Parents also stopped cooperating with DCS. Mother sent a cease-and-desist letter to DCS, asking it to withdraw its assessment and disregard their previous statements, claiming coercion by the FCM. The letter also revoked all releases of information (ROIs) and permissions to contact, so DCS could no longer communicate with the family or their service providers to monitor the situation.
[¶10] Concerned that the family had reunited without a plan to ensure Children's safety, DCS requested an emergency custody order. The trial court granted the order, but Father refused to release Children. He finally relented hours later, after police requested a SWAT team and hostage negotiator. Children were moved to their maternal grandparent's house, and Parents were allowed only supervised visitation. DCS filed a petition to adjudicate Children as CHINS.
[¶11] In late December 2023, DCS met with Parents to create a new safety plan. Under that plan, Children moved back into the family home with Mother while Father resided elsewhere. He was allowed only third-party supervised parenting time with Children. The plan also required Parents to complete a domestic violence assessment and receive counseling services.
[¶12] Over the next two months, Parents failed to complete the required services and again revoked all ROIs. Despite two assessments that recommended Father participate in a Batterer's Intervention Program (BIP), he refused to do so and denied the existence of domestic violence. DCS became concerned that Father was having unsupervised visitation and communication with Children. As a result, DCS believed the safety plan had been violated and petitioned the court to order Parents to comply with the plan. After a hearing, the trial court granted DCS's request.
[¶13] Two weeks later, the trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petition. By this time, K.C. had turned eighteen and was no longer included in the petition, leaving only the sons, I.C. and M.C. (collectively, Sons). At the hearing, Parents argued that they were voluntarily meeting Sons' needs because Parents were engaged in counseling and completed parenting and domestic violence classes. But DCS insisted that court intervention was nonetheless necessary because Parents still denied the existence of domestic violence and failed to complete the proper services and programs. Sons' guardian ad litem (GAL) agreed that the family needed services but opined that the "question [was] do they need . . . intervention of the court." Tr. Vol. III, p. 88.
[¶14] The trial court agreed with DCS and adjudicated Sons to be CHINS. After a dispositional hearing, the court ordered the family to participate in services and Father to complete a Batterer's Intervention Program, among other things. Parents appeal the CHINS determination.
Discussion and Decision
[¶15] In reviewing a CHINS determination, we "do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility," but consider only evidence favorable to the judgment. In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 577-78 (Ind. 2017). When, as here, the trial court supplements its determination with findings of fact and conclusions of law, we first consider whether the evidence supports the findings, and, second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 578. We reverse the determination "only if it was clearly erroneous." Id. Clear error occurs when record facts do not support the findings or when the wrong legal standard is applied. Id.
[¶16] DCS alleged Sons to be CHINS under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1. In pertinent part, this statute required DCS to prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) Parents' actions, inaction, or inabilities have seriously impaired or endangered Sons; (2) Sons have unmet needs; and (3) these needs are unlikely to be met without the coercive intervention of the court. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). Parents argue that DCS presented insufficient evidence on these elements and challenge some of the trial court's findings and conclusions. We find that the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Sons are CHINS.
I. Parents Seriously Endangered Sons
[¶17] Parents first dispute the trial court's conclusion that Sons' physical or mental conditions were seriously impaired or endangered. But this argument discounts the dangerousness of the November 2023 incident, ignores Parents' ongoing pattern of domestic violence followed by denial, and downplays the trauma of a child having to fight his father for control of a loaded gun while his younger brother watched.
[¶18] This family has a long history of domestic trauma. In 2011, Father was charged with committing domestic battery against Mother, though Mother later recanted her accusations. In 2014, police responded to a dispute between Parents in which Father threw a soap dispenser. That same year, Mother called police to report that Father locked her out of the house during an argument. Parents now blame this call on Mother's bad reaction to pain medication. In 2021, Father again prevented Mother from entering the house and allegedly threatened to burn it down. The responding officer was so alarmed that he warned other officers to be cautious when responding to the home. The November 2023 incident, which Parents again blamed on Mother's reaction to medication, appears to be another manifestation of this ongoing pattern.
[¶19] Domestic violence harms children, whether they are the targets or witnesses. See In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 644-45 (Ind. 2014); see also S.H. v. D.W., 139 N.E.3d 214, 216 (Ind. 2020) ("Children exposed to domestic violence are more likely to suffer significant psychological and developmental issues."). Parents' history of repeated domestic violence within the family home is enough to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sons were seriously endangered. See K.B. v. Ind. Dep't. of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997, 1004 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (finding children endangered when exposed to domestic violence).
[¶20] Parents challenge the trial court's finding that Father threatened to commit deadly violence against Mother during the November 2023 incident. But police body-camera footage captured Father stating that he had a right to defend his property with deadly force and would treat Mother like an intruder if she tried to enter. Then, when Mother threatened to break a window, Father said he was "getting a gun," and did so. Exh. 1F at 13:35-36. When I.C. later asked him why he got his gun, Father said: "In case anyone came in." Id. at 17:27-29. When police asked the same question, Father said: "I told you what I was going to do." Id. at 20:19-20. Though Parents argue that Father meant to store the gun safely, that argument is an impermissible request to reweigh the evidence, which we decline to do.
[¶21] Parents also challenge the trial court's related findings concerning the foreseeable risk of harm to Sons. The court found that the loaded gun could have injured Sons through either an accidental discharge or potential crossfire between police and Father. According to the record, Father and I.C. fell to the ground during the struggle and the barrel of the gun passed by I.C.'s face. The situation was so serious that the responding officer drew his weapon because he "fear[ed] for [his] life." Tr. Vol. II, p. 183.
[¶22] This finding of foreseeable risk was based on "reasonable inferences from the facts," and not "speculative future concerns," as Parents argue. See A.R. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 121 N.E.3d 598, 605 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019). DCS need not "wait until a tragedy occurs to intervene." K.B., 24 N.E.3d at 1005 (citation omitted).
II. Sons Have Unmet Needs
[¶23] Parents next dispute the trial court's conclusion that Sons have unmet needs. At the fact-finding hearing, the FCM and GAL testified that the family, including Sons, needed services. And multiple assessments directed Father to complete a BIP, which he did not do. Still, Parents argue that their current family, individual, and marriage counseling meets Sons' needs. But the family was already engaging in therapy before the November 2023 incident.
[¶24] Moreover, Parents were not being honest with their service providers. On the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Parents both scored on the "lie index," indicating "they were faking good behaviors." Tr. Vol. II, pp. 247-48. Father's assessments show that he "denied all unhealthy relationship behaviors" and exhibited "highly defensive" responding. Id. at 238; App. Vol. II, p. 84. When the FCM contacted Parents' marriage counselor, he was "quite surprised with the information that seemed to be left out" of their counseling sessions. Tr. Vol. III, p. 20. This lack of transparency undermines the efficacy of the existing services that Parents claim are sufficient.
[¶25] Parents' continued denial of the existence of domestic violence indicates that the underlying issues remain unaddressed. Father completed only an online domestic violence course, which he was told did not meet DCS requirements.When asked at the fact-finding hearing if Father sought to enroll in a properly accredited BIP, he replied: "No. Why would I?" and stated it "would be unnecessary." Tr. Vol. II, pp. 145, 156. This record supports the trial court's finding that because of Father's failure to complete ordered services, there is no assurance that violence will not recur. See K.B., 24 N.E.3d at 1004 (finding "no 2 surety that the violence will not recur" where parents failed to complete domestic violence counseling).
DCS requires that domestic violence programs be accredited by the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence. That organization does not accredit online courses, like the one Father completed, because they lack the individual work and group component which are vital to learning and monitoring progress. They are seen as a "dangerous 'quick fix.'" App. Vol. II, p. 23.
[¶26] Parents also challenge two of the trial court's findings related to Sons' unmet needs. First, Parents disagree that they have not accepted responsibility for or acknowledged the dangerousness of the November 2023 incident. But the trial court was not obligated to believe Father's self-serving testimony that he should have done things differently that night. And at the fact-finding hearing, Mother continued to characterize the incident as "literally just a really bad night." Tr. Vol. II, p. 86. Second, Parents dispute the finding that M.C. needs individual therapy following the November 2023 incident. But 12-year-old M.C.'s exposure to and involvement in the incident of domestic violence supports the court's finding that additional services were needed.
III. Court Coercion Is Necessary
[¶27] Finally, Parents dispute the trial court's conclusion that coercion is necessary to ensure Sons receive the needed services. This element "guards against unwarranted State interference in family life." In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. Accordingly, a court will only intervene where parents truly lack the ability to provide the needed care without court intervention. Id. Courts "consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard." In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 580. This avoids "punishing parents for past mistakes when they have already corrected them." Id. at 581.
[¶28] Parents' continued refusal to address their domestic violence demonstrates that they will not complete the required services without court coercion. We are unpersuaded by Parents' comparison to In re T.H. 856 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006). In that case, this Court found a father's failure to complete services, without further evidence of neglect, was insufficient to support a CHINS finding because the underlying issue was resolved before the fact-finding hearing and there was "no evidence that he actually needed [services]." Id. at 1251. But here, the issues remain unresolved, and there is ample evidence that services are still needed, as previously discussed.
[¶29] Parents' actions make clear that they are not willing to address these issues voluntarily. Father stated he would sign ROIs only if the court ordered him, and he still questioned the court's authority to do so. The family's relationship with Firefly, the DCS-referred service provider, ended before assessments could be completed due to Parents' lack of cooperation. During a family meeting, Father got "very upset" and told providers to leave the house before revoking all ROIs in the middle of the assessment process. Tr. Vol. III, p. 21. Firefly then had to discharge the family.
[¶30] The evidence demonstrates that court intervention is necessary to ensure Parents engage in needed services. Cf. In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d at 581 (finding no court intervention needed where parents cooperated with DCS and "satisfactorily completed all services" before the fact-finding hearing). Despite professional evaluations and a history of police responding to their disputes, Parents refuse to acknowledge or address the domestic violence between them. This leaves little confidence that Parents will voluntarily participate in the necessary services to prevent Sons from further exposure to domestic violence.
Conclusion
[¶31] Given the foregoing evidence and our deferential standard of review, we cannot say that the trial court's determination that Sons were CHINS was clearly erroneous. We affirm.
Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.