CHINS adjudication affirmed for bruised infant

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the CHINS adjudication of an infant who was bruised by suspected physical abuse less than a week after his birth, denying his parents’ appeal of the order.

Just days after his birth, a pediatrician spotted what appeared to be a bruise on then-newborn R.G.’s cheek during a follow-up check. The doctor also found a discoloration on the infant’s ribcage that wasn’t present during the child’s initial examination, which caused him concern.

When R.G.’s mother couldn’t give a plausible reason for why her child was bruised, Riley Hospital for Children’s Child Protection Team was notified, along with the Indiana Department of Child Services. A DCS case worker spoke with R.G.’s parents about the doctor’s concerns, but both parents minimized them, saying “it’s just a little bruise” and “every kid gets bruised.”

The Bartholomew Circuit Court then granted DCS’s request for emergency custody of R.G. and his other half siblings due to the parents’ inability to explain R.G.’s injuries, concerns of the family’s living conditions and the older children’s recurrent lice and educational neglect. But Indiana DCS was unable to locate the family, and the parents informed the children’s school that they had moved to Kentucky.

A case worker eventually contacted the family, who refused to say where they were, and Kentucky DCS located the children and returned them to Indiana pursuant to the emergency custody order issued by the court.

Although permitted to supervised visitation with their children, concerns were again raised when the parents exhibited “intimidating” and “threatening” behavior during a visit. All of the children, including R.G., were ultimately adjudicated as children in need of services.

In an appeal of the CHINS adjudication, R.G.’s parents alleged the trial court erred in allowing a pediatric radiologist who reviewed x-rays of R.G. to testify telephonically during the CHINS fact finding hearing.

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court erred by not complying with Indiana Administrative Rule 14 in allowing the telephonic testimony in In the Matter of: R.G. (Child) and M.M. (Mother) and M.G. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services,19A-JC-598. However, the appellate panel also concluded the error was harmless in light of other evidence of probative value to support the CHINS determination.

The CHINS determination was supported by sufficient evidence, the panel concluded, pointing back to the pediatrician’s initial concerns about physical abuse of R.G. when he discovered a bruise on the baby’s face.

“Through Dr. (Todd) Baxter’s testimony, DCS introduced evidence of probative value that Child suffered injuries while in the sole care and custody of Parents, Parents were unable to provide an explanation for the injuries, the injuries were not of the type that would ordinarily be sustained but for an act or omission of Parents, and there is a reasonable probability that the injuries were non-accidental,” Judge Robert Altice wrote for the panel.

Lastly, the appellate court found the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in ordering R.G.’s parents to participate in reunification services, which they alleged were not tailored to reunifying a family and were unrelated to the reason for R.G.’s removal.

“Clearly the ordered services are aimed at addressing the concerns of physical abuse –  especially in a case where a newborn is found to have sustained unexplained injuries,” Altice wrote. “That DCS had yet to identify specific service providers at the time of the dispositional hearing due to the fact that Parents now reside in Kentucky does not render the trial court’s order that Parents participate in services an abuse of discretion.”

The appellate court thus affirmed the CHINS adjudication.