CHINS: JB v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
29A04-1610-JC-2453
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Parents (Father J.B. and Mother A.B.) have multiple children; Mother has a long history of serious mental illness with prior DCS involvement and prior CHINS adjudication concerning a sibling.
- Mother was involuntarily committed to Aspire and required to attend therapy and med compliance; Father had limited prior parenting and showed questionable insight into Mother’s illness.
- Child born Feb. 6, 2016, initially in NICU; hospital staff reported Mother refused to care for herself or see the infant, and staff expressed concern Mother could not safely parent a newborn.
- DCS removed the infant and filed a CHINS petition citing Mother’s mental health, Father’s lack of insight, prior CHINS history, and safety concerns (e.g., prior undernourishment of sibling from homemade formula).
- Parents participated in services, improved, and had successful unsupervised overnight visits; DCS moved to dismiss, but the GAL urged caution and the trial court denied dismissal and adjudicated the Child a CHINS to allow continued court oversight during transition.
- Trial court found continued intervention necessary; on appeal Father argued the evidence was insufficient because conditions had improved. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in adjudicating the Child a CHINS | DCS: court intervention required given history and risk factors to ensure Child's safety during reunification | Father: conditions had improved, service providers and DCS favored dismissal, parents can safely care for Child without coercion | Affirmed — sufficient evidence (history, GAL concerns, risk of relapse/noncompliance) supported CHINS adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS finding protects child and does not punish parent)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (juvenile courts must balance parental rights, due process, and recommendations in CHINS cases)
- In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (court need not wait for tragedy; CHINS cannot be based solely on past conditions)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (appellate standard: affirm if judgment sustainable on any legal theory supported by evidence)
- In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (reunification and closure do not necessarily render CHINS appeal moot)
- Roark v. Roark, 551 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (appellate consideration where leaving judgment undisturbed could have collateral consequences)