U.F. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re E.Y.)

8 Citing cases

  1. J.P. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re B.P.)

    No. 22A-JC-44 (Ind. App. Jul. 7, 2022)

    In U.F. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (In re E.Y.), we reversed the trial court's CHINS determination where DCS had not shown any harm or danger to the child from mother's obvious mental illness. 93 N.E.3d 1141 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018). As we observed,

  2. J.P. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re B.P.)

    190 N.E.3d 995 (Ind. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    In U.F. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (In re E.Y.) , we reversed the trial court's CHINS determination where DCS had not shown any harm or danger to the child from mother's obvious mental illness. 93 N.E.3d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). As we observed,

  3. T.H. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re M.H.)

    No. 23A-JC-2590 (Ind. App. Apr. 29, 2024)

    [¶15] As the trial court correctly recognized, a parent's mental illness alone cannot alone support a CHINS adjudication. See Matter of E.Y., 93 N.E.3d 1141, 1146 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018). That is, DCS must present evidence of the effect on the child of the parent's mental illness, specifically whether the child's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result.

  4. C.E. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re N.E.)

    No. 22A-JC-405 (Ind. App. Oct. 24, 2022)

    [¶19] Indiana law is clear that a parent's mental illness, without more, is not sufficient to support a CHINS determination. In In re E.Y., 93 N.E.3d 1141 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018), we reversed the trial court's CHINS determination where DCS had not shown any harm or danger to the child from mother's obvious mental illness. As we observed,

  5. C.E. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re N.E.)

    198 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. App. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    [19] Indiana law is clear that a parent's mental illness, without more, is not sufficient to support a CHINS determination. In In re E.Y. , 93 N.E.3d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), we reversed the trial court's CHINS determination where DCS had not shown any harm or danger to the child from mother's obvious mental illness. As we observed,

  6. R.W. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re D.W.)

    No. 21A-JC-2367 (Ind. App. Jun. 17, 2022)

    This court has noted that a parent's mental illness, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a serious danger to the child. In re E.Y., 93 N.E.3d 1141, 1146 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018). Here, however, it is not the mere fact of Mother's mental illness that supports the CHINS finding; instead, it is the manifestation of her mental illness if left untreated.

  7. M.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re M.M.)

    138 N.E.3d 983 (Ind. App. 2019)

    Id. [17] In support of her argument, Mother points to E.Y. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs ., 93 N.E.3d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) as an illustration of the appropriate analysis a court should undertake when a parent is alleged to have a mental illness. In E.Y. , evidence was presented that mother heard the voice of her former employer coming through the television set and a caseworker testified that Mother appeared to suffer from schizophrenia.

  8. C. G. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re B. G.)

    Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JC-4 (Ind. App. Aug. 9, 2019)

    Additionally, in emphasizing the more positive testimony of the second visitation supervisor while overlooking much of the more negative testimony, Mother asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. [19] This Court has noted that a parent's mental illness, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a serious danger to the child. In re E.Y., 93 N.E.3d 1141, 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Here, however, it is not the mere fact of Mother's mental illness that supports the CHINS finding.