Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 (2026)
Burden of proof in other cases
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. A finding not covered by section 1 or 2 of this chapter must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(a) part.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: In the Matter of Des.B. & Dem.B., Minor Child. in Need of Servs., E.B. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
In the Matter of Des.B. & Dem.B., Minor Child. in Need of Servs., E.B. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “"Said differently, the purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not punish parents.”
Parmeter v. Cass Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 878 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ind.Code § 31-34-12-3. We first consider whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings in the dispositional decree.”
Perrine v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Child Servs., 866 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ind.Code § 31-34-12-3. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom.”
JW v. Hendricks Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 697 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “CODE § 31-34-12-3. [4] We are cognizant of other cases stating that sound public policy dictates that the juvenile court consider the factors laid out in IND.”
Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. v. J.D., R.B., 77 N.E.3d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “2010); I.C. § 31-34-12-3. On appeal, we will reverse a negative judgment only where the trial court’s decision is contrary to law.”
Davis v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 869 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “I.C. § 31-34-12-3. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom.”
In the Matter of V.H. J.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Servs., 967 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “I.C. § 31-34-12-3. In this case, V.H. had an IEP through school, describing how she would access the general education curriculum and the special education services needed to participate in school.”
In re the Matter of M.M., A.M., & B.M. (Minor Child.), R.M. (Father) v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 118 N.E.3d 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 . [14] In reviewing a CHINS determination, we do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility for ourselves.”
In the Matter of: L.P., a Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Servs., K.K., Mother v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 6 N.E.3d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “was returned to Mother’s care, with continued DCS involvement. Mother appeals. Discussion and Decision The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.”
In Re Ts, 906 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. 2009). “Indiana Code § 31-34-12-3 provides that any finding by a juvenile court (unrelated to termination of parental rights or child delinquency) must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.”
M.C. v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 969 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-3; In re N.E., 919 N.”
In the Matter of the Parent-Child Relationship of Ma.H., Le.H., Lo.H., W.H., La.H., Me.H., & S.W. (Child.) & M.H. (Father) & R.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 119 N.E.3d 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “The burden of proof in a CHINS case is preponderance of the evidence, Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 , while the burden of proof in a termination of parental rights case is clear and convincing evidence, Ind.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.