the requirements of either Indiana Code sections 31-84-1-1 or 2 could have been used to pursue a CHINS determination of N.E. and her siblings. However, both require a finding that there is "care, treatment, or rebabilitation that . is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court." IC. §§ 31-34-1-1, 2. At first blush, it seems that if a child was not a CHINS with respect to either of its parents, the coercive intervention of the court would not be necessary because that parent would be providing or accepting the necessary care, treatment, or rehabilitation on the child's behalf. However, we have recently addressed a CHINS disposition as it relates to each parent as separate issues. See In re C.S., 863 N.E.2d 413, 418 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). We did so without discussion of how or why we
holding that the presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the putative father to establish that he did not father the child holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that court could permit grandparent or other person having substantial past contact with child to intervene in pending sapcr even though original suit requesting possessory conservatorship could not be filed by grandparent or other person and further holding that stepgrandmother had standing to intervene to seek managing conservatorship of child under section 102004b and section 1020039 where natural mother abandoned child after birth parents were divorced natural father remarried father had custody of child after father died child lived first with stepmother then with stepgrandmother and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old holding that a child was not a chins with respect to its father where the child had been found to be a chins with respect to mother but there was no allegation and no evidence that the father was responsible for the circumstance which led to the chins determination holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity