In Re RP
949 N.E.2d 395
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DCS filed CHINS petitions for R.P. and L.P. on March 11, 2010.
- Emergency removal of the children occurred March 11–12, 2010 based on alleged danger from Mother’s reports.
- A preliminary inquiry in March 2010 found probable cause to proceed; a factfinding hearing was held July 9–12, 2010.
- On August 19, 2010 the court found R.P. and L.P. to be CHINS, and on September 14, 2010 entered a dispositional order placing the children with Father and under DCS wardship.
- Mother challenged the timeliness of the factfinding hearing, sufficiency of CHINS evidence, and procedural due process.
- The appellate court affirmed, addressing jurisdiction, evidence sufficiency, and due process considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court lacked jurisdiction due to delay beyond 60 days | Mother argues 60-day limit was violated and hearing should be dismissed. | DCS and court argue delay can be excused for legitimate reasons and is not jurisdictional. | Court held time limit is not jurisdictional and delay may be excused. |
| Whether the evidence supports CHINS findings by a preponderance | Mother contends evidence is insufficient to prove CHINS. | DCS shows patterns like false abuse reports can endanger a child and justify CHINS. | Evidence is sufficient to support CHINS findings. |
| Whether the dispositional findings violated procedural due process | Mother claims boilerplate findings inadequately explain needs and services. | Court’s findings, though sparse, address statutory elements and are adequate. | Findings were sufficient to meet due process requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parmeter v. Cass Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 878 N.E.2d 444 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (60-day requirement not strictly mandatory; may be excused for legitimate delays)
- In re V.C., 867 N.E.2d 167 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (pattern of false allegations can endanger a child and support CHINS)
- A.P. v. Porter Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 734 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (boilerplate findings and due process considerations in CHINS/terminations)
- A.I. v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (one deficiency may not equal constitutional due process violation)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind.2010) (procedural irregularities and due process considerations in CHINS)
- In re T.S., 881 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (boilerplate language generally insufficient for appellate review)
- G.B. v. Dearborn Cnty. Div. of Family and Children, 754 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (state interest in child welfare limits parental rights)