The Indiana Court of Appeals has sided with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) in a case involving a mother, D.F., and her two children, T.F. and M.F. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to adjudicate the children as Children in Need of Services (CHINS) and to continue their removal from their mother’s care.
Background of the Case
The case began in January 2025 when DCS received reports of potential abuse and neglect of the children. These reports included allegations that T.F., born in July 2014, had been sexually abused by her maternal grandfather. They also cited concerns about neglect and physical abuse by the mother, D.F., as well as T.F.’s self-harming behavior, suicidal thoughts, and violent outbursts. M.F., born in April 2018, was also considered a victim of the conditions in the home.
Following an investigation, DCS determined the sexual abuse allegation was unsubstantiated. However, Family Case Manager Kimberly Ernest observed concerning conditions during visits to the home. These included clutter, dirty dishes, empty beer cans, and garbage bags. She also noted that T.F. had made threats and exhibited violent behavior. On one occasion, FCM Ernest met with the mother, who appeared intoxicated.
In February 2025, FCM Ernest observed a bruise on T.F.’s face, which T.F. said was caused by her mother. M.F. also reported not eating lunch or dinner the previous day and that she and her sister had trouble sleeping due to fights and yelling. Based on these observations, DCS removed the children from the mother’s care and placed them with their maternal grandparents.
The CHINS Adjudication
DCS filed petitions alleging the children were CHINS, citing the mother’s alcohol abuse, the home’s poor condition, and T.F.’s mental health issues. At a fact-finding hearing in April 2025, the mother’s counsel indicated the mother wished to make a “limited admission.” The court clarified with the mother that by admitting the children were CHINS, the court would adjudicate them as such without a fact-finding hearing. The mother confirmed she understood and agreed.
The trial court accepted the mother’s admission, finding she knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to a fact-finding hearing. The court’s order noted that the mother had since completed an inpatient treatment program and addressed issues in the home. However, it also found that T.F. continued to have mental health issues requiring court-ordered services, and that both children needed therapy and counseling.
The mother appealed the CHINS adjudication, arguing that her “limited admission” did not establish all the necessary statutory elements. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The court explained that by admitting the children were CHINS and waiving her right to a fact-finding hearing, the mother relieved DCS of the burden of proving the elements of the CHINS statute. Having made that choice, the mother could not later challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Dispositional Decree
Following the CHINS adjudication, the trial court held a dispositional hearing to determine the children’s placement and the services needed for the mother. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from the mother and Family Case Manager Sydney Hicks. By this time, T.F. had spent additional time in an inpatient mental health facility and was placed with a foster family because she felt her maternal grandparents did not understand her needs.
The trial court issued a dispositional decree that continued M.F.’s placement with maternal grandparents and T.F.’s placement in foster care. The court ordered the mother to complete additional services requested by DCS and to engage in supervised visitation with the children.
The mother argued the trial court abused its discretion by continuing the children’s removal from her care. However, the Court of Appeals found the trial court’s findings supported its decision. The court noted the decree found that remaining in the home would be contrary to the children’s welfare because of the mother’s inability to provide adequate care and supervision. The court also noted that T.F. required specialized mental health treatment. The Court of Appeals found no clear error in the trial court’s findings and affirmed the dispositional decree.
Key Takeaways
* Limited Admissions: The case highlights the importance of clarity when making limited admissions in court. The court acknowledged that the initial discussion about the mother’s admission could have been clearer, particularly regarding the specific allegations she was admitting.
* Waiver of Rights: By admitting the children were CHINS and waiving her right to a fact-finding hearing, the mother effectively conceded the issue of whether the children met the legal definition of CHINS. This decision had significant consequences for her ability to challenge the subsequent court orders.
* Best Interests of the Child: The court emphasized that the primary focus in CHINS cases is the well-being of the children. The court’s decision to continue the children’s removal was based on the findings that such a decision was in their best interests.