In Re: The Matter of A.H., and S.H., Minor Children, V.H., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services
992 N.E.2d 960
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DCS received a report (Jan 9, 2013) alleging Mother used methamphetamine and heroin in presence of her children and sold drugs; DCS opened an assessment.
- DCS caseworker visited Mother, observed no signs of drug use in the home, obtained a negative drug screen (except for prescribed meds), and had Mother sign a safety plan promising sobriety.
- Mother refused DCS permission to interview two school-aged children (ages 6 and 8) and asked to consult an attorney; DCS then filed petitions under Ind. Code § 31-33-8-7(d) to compel interviews.
- The juvenile court held a hearing, found DCS had a compelling interest and that interviews could be necessary for the assessment, and ordered Mother to produce the children for interviews (Mother could be present).
- Mother appealed, arguing the statute and the compelled interviews violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because the statutory procedure lacks verification and pre-interview factual safeguards; DCS argued the process provided sufficient notice and hearing protections and that interviews are part of a preliminary assessment.
- The appellate majority affirmed, holding parents’ rights are significant but not absolute, the statute permits interviews as part of preliminary assessments, and the Mathews balancing did not show a due-process violation under these circumstances. A concurring judge joined; one judge dissented, arguing the appeal was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ind. Code § 31-33-8-7(d)-(e) and the court order compelling child interviews violate Mother’s Fourteenth Amendment due process right to raise her children | Mother: Compelled interviews (interrogations) of young children without pre-interview verification, oath, or neutral magistrate review risk false reports and undue state intrusion; due process requires additional procedural safeguards like verification and credibility/corroboration | DCS: Statute provides sufficient process (notice, hearing, ability to be present); interviews are part of a preliminary assessment to protect children and are less intrusive than CHINS; extra verification is unnecessary and would impede timely child protection | Court: Affirmed — parental right is substantial but not absolute; statute permits interviews as part of an initial assessment; Mathews balancing does not show a due-process violation here; order to produce children for interviews upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (establishes the three-factor due process balancing test)
- In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (recognizes substantial parental liberty interest balanced against State’s parens patriae power)
- In re J.W. v. DCS, 977 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (discusses parental rights and state interest in child protection)
- J.B. v. Washington Cnty., 127 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 1997) (upholds child interviews as part of abuse/neglect investigations as balanced procedures)
- Phillips v. Cnty. of Orange, 894 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (observes no constitutional prohibition on in‑school child interviews during CPS investigations)