When DCS Punishes Victims: Indiana’s Troubling Approach to Domestic Violence and CHINS Cases
When a mother calls 911 for help because her partner attacks her and their newborn, most people would assume the State would protect her—not punish her. But the person who made that call may soon find out that the Indiana, the Department of Child Services (DCS) often removes children from the very parents who seek protection.
That was exactly what happened in A.B.-H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, decided by the Court of Appeals of Indiana on November 7, 2025. This case shows how DCS can treat victims of domestic violence as if they were perpetrators—an approach long rejected in other states such as New York under the landmark case Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357 (2004).
The Case: A.B.-H. v. Indiana DCS
In August 2024, A.B.-H. called 911 after her baby’s father put a pillow over her face and then over their 17-day-old infant’s face. Police arrested the father immediately, and DCS intervened. Despite the mother’s quick action to protect her child, DCS filed a CHINS petition (Child in Need of Services) and removed the newborn from her care.
Over the following months, the mother:
Filed for a protective order against the father;
Completed domestic violence counseling;
Attended all therapy and parenting classes; and
Secured stable housing and employment.
By the time of the fact-finding hearing, the abusive father was out of the picture and the mother had done everything DCS had asked. Even DCS’s own case manager admitted she had “no current concerns” about domestic violence and could not identify any services the child still needed that the mother wasn’t already providing.
Yet, the trial court still found the child to be a CHINS— a child in need of services - accusing the mother of “downplaying” the violence and claiming she “did not fully grasp the danger.”
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the CHINS finding was “clearly erroneous” because the conditions leading to removal no longer existed at the time of the hearing. The court emphasized that DCS’s coercive intervention is only justified when parents lack the ability to provide for their children—not when they are actively doing everything right.
Lessons from Nicholson v. Scoppetta
The A.B.-H. case mirrors the reasoning rejected two decades earlier by New York’s highest court in Nicholson v. Scoppetta (2004). In Nicholson, New York City’s child welfare agency had a policy of automatically removing children from mothers who were victims of domestic violence, arguing that “failure to protect” justified removal.
The New York Court of Appeals firmly rejected that logic, holding that:
“A victim of domestic violence, simply by being abused or by not leaving her abuser, is not per se a neglectful parent.”
The court recognized that forcing victims to flee, or punishing them for not leaving, can actually endanger both mother and child. Instead, agencies must focus on supporting non-offending parents, not tearing families apart.
Why Indiana Needs to Catch Up
While A.B.-H. is a positive step, it highlights a broader pattern: Indiana still allows DCS to treat domestic violence victims as if they caused the harm. Even though the Court of Appeals reversed this CHINS finding, that mother and child endured months of unnecessary trauma—simply because she was a victim.
Unlike New York and many other jurisdictions, Indiana law does not explicitly protect domestic violence victims from DCS intervention when they take reasonable steps to protect their children. This leads to perverse results:
Victims hesitate to call 911 for fear of losing their kids.
DCS focuses on “failure to protect” instead of pursuing the true abuser.
Families are destabilized instead of supported.
Children are victimized and harmed by being improperly removed from their family.
A Better Approach: Protect, Don’t Punish
The solution isn’t complicated. Indiana courts and DCS could follow the principles recognized in Nicholson and reaffirmed in A.B.-H.:
Recognize that victims who seek help are not neglectful. Calling for protection or leaving an abuser shows parental strength, not unfitness.
End the “failure to protect” logic. A parent’s reasonable fear or trauma response cannot justify removal.
Require evidence of current danger. As the A.B.-H. decision made clear, a CHINS adjudication cannot rest on past conditions that no longer exist.
Provide support instead of punishment. Offer housing, counseling, and legal advocacy to non-offending parents instead of removing children.
What to Do if DCS Gets Involved After Domestic Violence
If you are a victim of domestic violence and DCS becomes involved:
Do not face it alone. Consult an experienced family defense attorney immediately.
Document your safety steps—protective orders, police reports, and service participation.
Don’t admit fault or enter any agreements without consluting an attorney.
Request trauma-informed services.
You have the right to parent your children safely and without being punished for your victimization. The A.B.-H. case is a victory for common sense—but it also exposes how far Indiana still lags behind in protecting survivors. When DCS removes children from victims, it not only misinterprets the law—it perpetuates trauma.
Contact Vining Legal
If you’re facing a DCS investigation or CHINS case after escaping abuse, Vining Legal can help you fight back. We’ve defended countless Indiana parents in similar cases, and we know how to challenge DCS’s misuse of “failure to protect” allegations.
Call or text (317) 759-3225 or schedule your free consultation online today to protect your family and your rights.
