Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-34-12-4 (2025)
Presumption that child is child in need of services
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 4. A rebuttable presumption is raised that the child is a child in need of services because of an act or omission of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competent evidence of probative value that:
(1) the child has been injured;
(2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, or custodian:
(A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or
(B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or control of the child;
(3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for the act or omission of a parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(4) there is a reasonable probability that the injury was not accidental.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(b).]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.48-2012, SEC.60.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. v. J.D., R.B., 77 N.E.3d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. v. J.D., R.B., 77 N.E.3d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “*806 At the conclusion of the evidence, DCS argued that it had presented sufficient evidence to trigger the presumption, pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-34-12-4 , that Child was a CHINS.”
In re D.F., Kn.L., Ka.L. & M.M., Child. Alleged to Be in Need of Servs., L.T. (Mother) v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 83 N.E.3d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “I.C. § 31-34-12-4. We will refer to this statute as the “presumption statute.”
In the Matter of: R.G. (Child) & M.M. (Mother) & M.G. (Father) v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 130 N.E.3d 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “DCS also alleged that Child was presumed to be a CHINS under I.C. § 31-34-12-4 because he was injured while in Parents' care, the injury was not one that would ordinarily be sustained except for an act or omission of Parents, and there is a reasonable probability it was not…”
In the Matter of: C.K., a Child Alleged to be in Need of Servs., F.R. (Mother) & B.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. (mem. dec.), 70 N.E.3d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “The Order also applied the rebuttable presumption statute, Ind.Code § 31-34-12-4. On January 5, 2016, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed a report for the dispositional hearing, and DCS filed a parental participation plan as to Mother and Father respectively.”
In re Js, 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “In so finding, the trial court applied the rebuttable presumption of Indiana Code Section 31-34-12-4, namely, that J.S. was a CHINS because he was injured while in the care, custody, and control of this parents and his injuries would not ordinarily have occurred, except for an…”
In the Matter of: L.S., C.S., & W.S. (Minor Child. in Need of Servs.) J.S. (Father) v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 82 N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Father first contends that, under Indiana Code Section 31-34-12-4, there was a rebuttable presumption that L.”
Stewart v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “In so finding, the trial court applied the rebuttable presumption of Indiana Code Section 31-34-12-4, namely, that J.S. was a CHINS because he was injured while in the care, custody, and control of this parents and his injuries would not ordinarily have occurred, except for an…”
In the Matter of Ki.H. (Minor Child), A Child in Need of Servs. K.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. (mem. dec.), 147 N.E.3d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “The trial court based its adjudication on I.C. § 31-34-12-4, the presumption statute.”
In the Matter of: K.Y. (Minor Child) Child in Need of Servs. & M.Y. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. (mem. dec.), 145 N.E.3d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “Therefore, pursuant to Indiana Code 31-34-12-4, there is a rebuttable presumption that the Child is a child in need of services, and that presumption has not been rebutted by the evidence.”
Bateman v. Adams Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 865 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See I.C. § 31-34-12-4. Moreover, given the multiplicity of C.”
In the Matter of: A.A.S. (Minor Child) & J.A.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. (mem. dec.), 121 N.E.3d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 31-34-12-4 . [13] "The purpose of the Presumption Statute is clear.”
Miles v. Miami Cnty. Div. of Fam. & Child., 723 N.E.2d 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-4. To ensure the child’s safety, the child may be taken into custody pursuant to a court order.”
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.