May, J.
R.M. appeals the denial of the motion to correct error she filed after the trial court denied her petition to expunge the Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and Department of Child Services (“DCS”) records concerning her 2013 involvement with DCS. R.M. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request to expunge the substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect filed against her as part of the 2013 CHINS case because she provided sufficient evidence that the records had no current probative value that could justify the records’ continued retention. We affirm.
….
DCS substantiated reports are eligible for expungement pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-33-27-5… Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-33-27-5(f), R.M. was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she met those two requirements. When we review a determination made under a clear and convincing standard, we affirm “if, ‘considering only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting it, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could find [the necessary elements] proven by clear and convincing evidence.’” In re T.K., 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertson, 519 N.E.2d 135, 137 (Ind. 1988)).
….
The trial court found and concluded R.M. met the first prong of the test iterated in 31-33-27-5(f): “[T]he Court finds that there has been evidence presented by clear and convincing evidence that [R.M.] is not a threat to children in the future that has not been disputed by DCS[.]” (App. Vol. II at 28.) Accordingly, at issue herein is the second prong of that test. R.M. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her petition for expungement of her substantiated reports of abuse or neglect because she presented evidence to – demonstrate any DCS substantiated report had “insufficient current probative value to justify its retention in records of the department for future reference.” See Ind. Code § 31-33-27-5(f). However, R.M. does not challenge specific findings in the trial court’s order, and thus we turn to whether the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that DCS’s substantiated reports about her do have sufficient current probative value to warrant retention for future reference.
….
In her challenge to the trial court’s conclusion that there exists probative value in retaining DCS’s substantiated records regarding her, R.M. attempts to distinguish G.E., the seminal case interpretating this statute…
….
R.M. argues her case is distinguishable because she does not work with children. [Footnote omitted.] However, the trial court found, and R.M. does not challenge, that she lives with a child. Because R.M. lives with a child, the trial court noted the retention of her DCS substantiated reports would be of probative value in the event DCS received a report that R.M. was engaging in behavior that would be neglect or abuse of a child. Further, the licensing requirements for R.M.’s current or any future course of study are unknown and, as the trial court found, DCS’s substantiated report about R.M. could be relevant to those decisions. Based thereon, we conclude the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that DCS’s substantiated reports about R.M. had sufficient current probative value to justify their retention by DCS for future reference. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied R.M.’s petition to expunge DCS’s substantiated reports about her. See G.E., 29 N.E.3d at 773 (affirming the trial court’s denial of G.E.’s petition to expunge DCS’s reports based in part on the fact that she had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that there was insufficient current probative value to justify the retention of those records by DCS for future reference).
Conclusion
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied R.M.’s request to expunge DCS’s substantiated reports about her because R.M. did not show those records had insufficient current probative value to justify their retention by DCS for future reference. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of R.M.’s motion to correct error.
Affirmed
Crone, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.