Background

• Father challenged termination after CHINS proceedings where he was never named a party, notified, or provided CHINS documents despite DCS knowing his name and whereabouts.
• J.O. born in 2008; Father listed as biological father on birth certificate but CHINS petition initially did not name him.
• DCS failed to notify Father of detention or CHINS hearings; orders and case plans not provided during CHINS or prior to termination.
• Detention led to eventually Father becoming a party to the termination petition in March 2009 and participating in hearings.
• Termination judgment entered April 13, 2010, despite ongoing CHINS process and repeated due process deficiencies.
• Court reverses the termination order on procedural due process grounds, without addressing sufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• A.P. v. Porter County Office of Family & Children, 734 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (statutory CHINS framework protects parental rights while allowing state protection of children)
• In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (termination requires due process safeguards in CHINS context)
• In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (due process in termination proceedings)
• Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor due process balancing test)
• Tillotson v. Clay County Dep't of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (state interest in child welfare balanced with parental rights)
• E.D. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (recognizes substantial private and governmental interests in termination)
• Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (fundamental liberty interest in parent-child relationship)
• In re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
• Hite v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Children, 845 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (due process standards in CHINS/termination)