CHINS: DC v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A03-1609-JC-2068

June 2016: DCS filed a CHINS petition alleging Father left child K.R.W. alone in a hotel room containing drug paraphernalia and synthetic drugs; Father was arrested and charged with multiple drug and nuisance offenses.
The initial petition incorporated by reference a June 10, 2016 Preliminary Inquiry Report that described the hotel incident and Father’s statements/behavior.
Father was appointed counsel, transported from jail, and participated in a court-ordered facilitation on July 6, 2016; an amended CHINS petition was filed that morning.
At the July 6 hearing Father (through counsel) admitted, modified, or denied various allegations, agreed to a parent-participation plan, and the court adjudicated the children CHINS and entered dispositional orders.
On July 22 Father moved to set aside his admissions (characterizing the motion as seeking Rule 60 relief), arguing he received the amended petition and supporting materials too late to prepare and thus was denied due process.
The juvenile court denied the motion, finding Father had been advised of rights, had counsel, participated in facilitation, made tailored admissions (in part because of pending criminal charges), and showed no fraud, coercion, or prejudice; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Father’s motion to set aside admissions (treated as a Trial Rule 60(B) motion)	Late service of the amended petition and minutes‑before delivery of materials prevented meaningful consultation with counsel and deprived him of due process; he seeks Rule 60 relief and claims meritorious defenses	The amended petition merely restated allegations already in the Preliminary Inquiry Report (which was incorporated into the original petition); Father had counsel, time to confer during facilitation, and suffered no actual prejudice or surprise	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. The amended petition was not materially different from prior materials, Father had notice, counsel, and opportunity to contest, and he did not show fraud, coercion, or a meritorious defense under Rule 60(B)

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (sets the three‑factor due process balancing test)
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (applies Mathews factors to CHINS adjudications)
In re Adoption of C.B.M., 992 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. 2013) (Rule 60 relief is equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Wagler v. West Boggs Sewer Dist., 980 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion and burden on movant for Rule 60)
In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (Rule 60 is not a substitute for direct appeal; addresses procedural vs. merits relief)
Mid‑West Fed. Sav. Bank v. Epperson, 579 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (distinguishes procedural Rule 60 grounds from merits)
Baxter v. State, 734 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (defines meritorious defense standard under Rule 60)