Crone, J.
Case Summary
M.C. (Mother) and J.C. (Father) (collectively the Parents) appeal the trial court’s dispositional order (the Dispositional Order) following their child A.C.’s (Child) admission that Child is a child in need of services (CHINS) pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6 (CHINS-6) because Child was substantially endangering Child’s own health. The Parents argue that the Dispositional Order and the trial court’s prior order on the combined initial and detention hearing (the Initial/Detention Order) are clearly erroneous. They also argue that both orders violate their constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of Child, the free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.
We conclude that the Parents’ appeal of the Initial/Detention Order is moot and decline to address it. As for the Dispositional Order, we conclude that it is not clearly erroneous and that it does not violate the Parents’ constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The evidence in support of the Dispositional Order shows that on May 11, 2021, DCS received a report alleging that Mother was verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child’s transgender identity, and as a result, Child had thoughts of self-harm…
….
The Parents did not object to Child’s admission or to the factual basis for that admission and do not argue on appeal that Child is not a CHINS-6. They do not challenge the trial court’s findings that Child needs services to treat anorexia and individual and family therapy to ensure Child’s emotional, mental, and psychological well-being; that the Parents’ participation is necessary to ensure that Child receives adequate treatment for anorexia and that they support and protect Child’s emotional, mental, and psychological safety and well-being; and that the Parents participate in family therapy. Nevertheless, they contend that Child’s continued removal from the home is clearly erroneous because it (1) contravenes the CHINS-6 statute and (2) is unsupported by sufficient evidence that it is in Child’s best interest. We address each contention in turn.
….
It is evident from the trial court’s statements that its decisions in this case, including Child’s continued removal from the home, have been focused on the ultimate goal of reuniting the Parents and Child by ensuring that Child receives services to return Child to physical and psychological health and providing the family with the structure and support they need to enable them to learn to deal constructively with their disagreement regarding Child’s transgender identity. The court specifically stated that a disagreement between parents and a child is not a reason to remove a child from the home. While the court recognized a connection between Child’s medical and psychological issues and Child’s disagreement with the Parents, the mere existence of that connection does not mean Child’s disposition runs contrary to the CHINS-6 statute. As the court emphasized, this is an extreme case where Child has reacted to a disagreement with the Parents by developing an eating disorder and self-isolating, which seriously endangers Child’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being. The court’s decision to continue Child’s removal was not a response to the Parents’ acts or omissions relating to their beliefs regarding transgender individuals, and the court was not treating the case as if it were based on a CHINS-1 or a CHINS-2 adjudication. Rather, the trial court’s focus was clearly on Child’s medical and psychological health needs, and the court’s decision to continue Child’s placement outside the home is consistent with the CHINS-6 statute. We find no error here. [Footnote omitted.]
….
In their appellants’ brief, the Parents’ sufficiency of the evidence argument rests largely on their contention that the Dispositional Order is contrary to the CHINS-6 statute because the order is based on parental acts or omissions related to their repudiation of Child’s transgender identity. We have already found no merit to this argument. The Parents also contend that they participated in the DCS case management plan, maintained a safe and sanitary home, and sought medical and therapeutic services before the State became involved, and that Mother testified that she believed that they would be able to continue treatment while having Child at home. This argument is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we must decline. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s decision to continue Child’s removal from the home is not clearly erroneous.
Section 3 – The Dispositional Order does not violate the Parents’ constitutional rights.
The Parents also argue that the Dispositional Order violates their fundamental rights to the care, custody, and control of their child under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, their rights to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and their rights to free speech under the First Amendment.
Section 3.1 – The Dispositional Order does not violate the Parents’ constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of Child.
….
The Parents assert that the State does not have a compelling interest because they have not neglected, abused, or abandoned Child. We disagree. The unchallenged CHINS-6 adjudication establishes that the State has a compelling interest in protecting Child’s welfare…
The Parents argue that “the trial court’s decisions in this matter show a patent disregard for the parents’ rights to the care, custody, and control of their child and are clear examples of the state unlawfully substituting its own judgment for that of the parents.” Appellants’ Br. at 44. In support of these claims, the Parents present a rehash of their arguments that the Dispositional Order is clearly erroneous. That is, they contend that the trial court focused on the disagreement between the Parents and Child regarding Child’s transgender identity despite the dismissal of the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations. We have already concluded that the Dispositional Order was not based on the dismissed CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations and is consistent with the CHINS-6 statute and that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Child’s continued removal is in Child’s best interest. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the trial court unlawfully substituted its own judgment for that of the Parents.
….
Section 3.2 – The Dispositional Order does not violate the Parents’ rights to the free exercise of religion.
….
At the initial hearing, Father testified that the Parents cannot affirm Child’s transgender identity or use Child’s preferred pronouns based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. Tr. at 34. On appeal, the Parents contend that “the state’s actions clearly burdened [their] religious beliefs by forcing them to choose between (1) violating their religious beliefs by affirming their child’s transgender ideology or (2) losing custody of [Child] with the knowledge that the state’s placement would directly contradict their religious beliefs.” Appellants’ Br. at 44. We disagree that the Dispositional Order created such a choice.
As discussed in Section 2, the Dispositional Order was based on Child’s medical and psychological needs and not on the Parents’ disagreement with Child’s transgender identity. We observe that at the dispositional hearing, the FCM testified that it was not DCS’s position to continue Child’s removal from home if the Parents continued to exercise their religious views by affirming their view of Child’s transgender identity. Tr. at 71. The FCM explained that it “was not a matter of who’s right or who’s wrong […], it’s just more of a matter of ensuring [Child’s] safety.” Id. She also stated that it is “DCS’s hope that family therapy will help to rectify any conflict between parents and child so that child can safely return home.” Id. at 78. She attested that DCS had not made any decision in the case based on the Parents’ religious beliefs. Id. at 79. Additionally, Mother acknowledged that no one from DCS ever made a statement to her indicating that DCS staff disapproved of the Parents’ religious beliefs. Id. at 88-87. Thus, Child’s continued removal from the home was not based on the fact that the Parents did not accept Child’s transgender identity, and reunification is not contingent on the Parents violating their religious beliefs and affirming Child’s transgender identity. We conclude that the Dispositional Order does not impose a substantial burden on the Parents’ free exercise of religion.
Even if the Parents were able to demonstrate that the Dispositional Order imposes a substantial burden on their religious freedom, their claim that Child’s continued removal from the home violates the Free Exercise Clause would fail….
The CHINS-6 adjudication and the factual basis establish that Child’s health was substantially endangered and that the care, treatment, and rehabilitation would likely not occur without the court intervention. Thus, the State has a compelling interest in protecting Child’s physical and mental health.
In addition, Child’s removal from the home is narrowly tailored to serve the State’s compelling interest based on the same analysis that supports our conclusion that continued removal from the home is in Child’s best interest. The FCM testified that maintaining Child’s placement outside the home is essential to focus on treating Child’s eating disorder and providing therapy, and Child’s mental health evaluations both showed that Child suffered from significant psychological disorders and conditions. Although Child was placed outside the home, Parents have unsupervised visitation with Child. Therefore, we conclude that the Dispositional Order does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Section 3.3 – The trial court’s temporary restriction on discussion of Child’s transgender identity between the Parents and Child outside of family therapy does not violate the Parents’ freedom of speech.
….
The order in this case, like the order in G.R.G., involves only the Parents’ private speech with Child rather than public speech. Moreover, the Parents’ contention that the State “did not have a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of the child because the parents were already doing so” fails once again. Appellants’ Br. at 47. The CHINS-6 adjudication establishes that the State has a compelling interest in protecting Child’s physical and psychological health.
We also find the restriction narrowly tailored to address the State’s compelling interest. Child was adjudicated a CHINS because Child has an eating disorder that jeopardizes Child’s health. The trial court recognized that Child’s eating disorder and self-isolation were connected to the discord at home regarding Child’s transgender identity. Thus, the limitation of discussion of this topic directly targets the State’s compelling interest in addressing Child’s eating disorder and psychological health. Further, the order is narrowly tailored because it restricts the Parents from discussing the topic with Child only during visitation but permits the topic to be discussed in therapy, which permits the family to work on conflict management so that they will eventually be able to safely talk about it outside family therapy. Accordingly, we conclude that the order restricting conversation of this topic outside of family therapy is a permissible prior restraint.
Conclusion
We conclude that the Parents’ appeal of the Initial/Detention Order is moot and decline to address it. In addition, we conclude that Child’s continued removal is not contrary to the CHINS-6 statute and is supported by sufficient evidence that it is in Child’s best interest. We also conclude that Child’s continued removal from the home does not violate the Parents’ constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of Child or to their rights to the free exercise of religion. The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs, but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to Child. Finally, we conclude that the trial court’s temporary restriction on the discussion of Child’s transgender identity outside of family therapy does not violate the Parents’ free speech rights. Therefore, we affirm the Dispositional Order.
Affirmed.
Vaidik, J., and Altice, J., concur.