B.T. v. The Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re A.T.)
| Docket Number | 22A-JC-3051 |
| Decision Date | 23 August 2023 |
| Parties | In the Matter of: A.T., Child in Need of Services: v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner. B.T. (Mother) and N.T. (Father), Appellants-Respondents, |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Boone Circuit Court The Honorable Lori N. Schein Judge The Honorable Sally E. Berish, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 06C01-2110-JC-316
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT B.T.
Riley L. Parr
Lebanon, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT N.T.
Michael C. Price
Zionsville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] B.T. ("Mother") and N.T. ("Father") (collectively, "Parents") are the adoptive parents of A.T. Since being adopted by Parents in 2015, A.T. has engaged in problematic and sometimes violent behaviors. Parents have worked with various service providers over the years to provide A.T. with effective treatment and care. At some point, the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") became involved with the family, providing them with wrap-around services as needed. On October 4, 2021, Parents and A.T. appeared at DCS, with Parents claiming that A.T.'s condition had worsened and that she required residential placement for treatment. A.T. also indicated that she did not feel safe in Parents' home at that time. Two days later, on October 6, 2021, DCS filed a petition alleging that A.T. was a child in need of services ("CHINS"). The juvenile court subsequently found A.T. to be a CHINS. Parents appeal part of the juvenile court's CHINS determination. Concluding that the juvenile court correctly adjudicated A.T. to be a CHINS but that the portion of the juvenile court's order relating to Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 and -2 is not supported by the evidence, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
[¶2] Parents are the adoptive parents of A.T., who was born on June 5, 2006. Prior to her adoption by Parents, A.T "had been a victim of physical abuse and neglect by her biological parent, including witnessing sexually abusive behaviors by her" biological mother. Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 8. Parents met A.T. when she was placed at Coyote Hill Christian Children's Home as a ward of the State of Missouri. While placed at Coyote Hill, A.T. had "struggled with behavioral issues including sexually acting out on others, excessive self-masturbation, property destruction, bullying children at school, extreme attention-seeking, and excessive lying including false allegations of prior sexual abuse by biological father with brother's knowledge of it happening." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 8. She had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, and reactive attachment disorder and had been prescribed various medications.
[¶3] Despite being aware of A.T.'s mental-health and behavioral issues, Parents adopted A.T. and her brother in 2015. A.T. has, at times, demonstrated problematic and violent behavior since her adoption by Parents and has, at times, received both inpatient and out-patient treatment for her mental-health diagnoses. In 2016, after consultation with A.T.'s then-support team, Parents took A.T. off of her prescribed medications, and A.T. experienced a period of stability. However, by 2019, A.T.'s condition had deteriorated such that her then-support team had recommended that she again be medicated. Additionally, at some point, A.T. "began to report seeing an entity named Samuel with her at times," producing "letters she claimed were from Samuel, drafted in her own handwriting." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 11.
[¶4] A.T. "was admitted to two acute emergency psychiatric stays during" August of 2020. Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 12. Beginning in September of 2020, A.T. received residential treatment from Resource for "nine and a half (9%) months." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 12. While at Resource, A.T. displayed Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 12. A.T. was discharged from Resource on July 19, 2021, without successfully completing her programming "due to Medicaid terminating funding for the private placement." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 13. Following A.T.'s discharge from Resource, the family was referred to DCS for community wrap-around services. In the months that followed, A.T. continued to engage in problematic, sometimes violent behavior.
[¶5] On October 4, 2021, following another incident involving A.T., Parents brought her to their local DCS office. Parents reported that A.T. had threatened to kill her adult sibling and had threatened to harm them. Parents indicated that they wanted A.T. "to go to a facility" and A.T. indicated that she did "not feel safe in [Parents'] home." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 57. As of October 4, 2021, A.T. had been diagnosed with Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 57.
[¶6] While at the DCS office, Parents met with DCS representatives who were a part of A.T.'s family-care team, with whom they eventually agreed to a safety plan that would have A.T. transported to a hospital for a risk assessment, with Parents following behind in a separate vehicle. However, after the members of A.T.'s family-care team left the DCS offices, a DCS supervisor, who was not a part of A.T.'s family-care team, "overrode the agreed on safety plan and instead had the [family-case managers] advise Parents they had to agree to take Child home with them or DCS would charge them with abandonment." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II pp. 16-17 (emphasis in original, internal quotation omitted).
Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 17. A.T.'s concerning behaviors, including physical aggression toward others, self-harm, and suicidal ideation have continued since her placement at Oaklawn. Since A.T.'s placement at Oaklawn, A.T. has engaged in family counseling, as have Parents, with the therapeutic recommendation since A.T.'s admission being that there be no inperson visitation between Parents and A.T. but with cards passed through the therapist.
[¶8] As the case proceeded, Parents separately requested permission to offer evidence establishing that A.T. was a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-6. The matter eventually proceeded to a five-day evidentiary hearing, beginning on March 3, 2022, and continuing on June 1 and 2, 2022; July 27, 2022; and August 17, 2022. On July 26, 2022, after the first three days of the evidentiary hearing had been completed and after DCS had completed its casein-chief, DCS requested permission to amend its initial CHINS petition to include an allegation that A.T. was also a CHINS pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2. Parents objected to DCS's request to amend the CHINS petition, arguing that the amended petition was untimely and that "permitting an amendment at this stage undermines all concept of notice and due process rights." Appellant B.T.'s App. Vol. II p. 143. The juvenile court granted DCS's request over Parents' objection and the proceedings continued.
[¶9] On October 31, 2022, the juvenile court issued an order in which it found A.T. to be a CHINS, concluding that the evidence demonstrated that A.T. is a CHINS under Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1, -2, and -6. With regard to Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, the juvenile court concluded as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial