May, J.
V.M. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating her child, W.H. (“Child”), a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and its dispositional order directing her to complete services related to the reasons for the CHINS adjudication. Mother raises two issues for our review, which we revise and restate as:
1. Whether, in the order adjudicating Child a CHINS, the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that Child’s physical or mental health was seriously endangered or seriously impaired by Mother’s inability or unwillingness to address her mental health problems such that the coercive intervention of the trial court was needed; and
2. Whether, in the trial court’s dispositional order,
2.1 the trial court properly relied upon the predispositional report despite the fact that it had not been admitted as evidence; and
2.2 the trial court made the required findings.
We affirm.
….
Mother presents two arguments regarding the trial court’s dispositional order – (1) the trial court improperly referenced the predispositional report because it had not been entered into evidence, and (2) the court did not make certain findings in the order….In making the required findings, the trial court “may incorporate a finding or conclusion from a predispositional report as a written finding or conclusion upon the record[.]” Ind. Code § 31-34-19-10(b).
2.1 Predispositional Report
Mother argues the trial court erred when, in its dispositional order, it referenced the predispositional report as a source of information in making its decision because the predispositional report was not entered into evidence. However, Mother has cited no statute or case law that requires the predispositional report to be entered into evidence to be considered by the juvenile court during the dispositional hearing.
Instead, juvenile courts are required by statute to order preparation of a predispositional report. Ind. Code § 31-34-18-1(a)…
In light of the statutory obligation for a juvenile court to order the preparation of a predispositional report that is intended to assist the court in entering the dispositional order, we see predispositional reports being akin to presentence investigation reports, which must be created before a defendant convicted of a felony may be sentenced. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-8. Presentence investigation reports are to contain various forms of information intended to assist the court in creating the appropriate sentence for a specific defendant and crime, see Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9, and defendants have the right to submit their own report for the court to consider. Ind Code § 35-38-1-11. As with pre-disposition reports, presentence reports must be provided to the parties prior to the sentencing. Ind Code § 35-38-1-12.
Importantly, our Indiana Supreme Court has referred to presentence investigation reports as “‘non-evidentiary’ information” that a trial court “can properly consider” when deciding how to sentence a defendant. Schiro v. State, 479 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ind. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1036 (1986). We see no reason not to apply that same logic to the predispositional report. Because the court was required to order preparation of the report and the report had to be provided to the parties prior to the dispositional hearing, the report did not need to be admitted into evidence to be part of the record that the juvenile court could consider. Mother has not demonstrated the juvenile court erred by considering the predispositional report.
….
Conclusion
The juvenile court’s findings supported its adjudication of Child as a CHINS. Further, the predispositional report did not need to be admitted into evidence at the hearing to be considered by the juvenile court. Finally, Mother has not demonstrated error in the dispositional order. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.