In Re: The Matter of D.J. and G.J., Children in Need of Services Gr.J. (Mother) and J.J. (Father) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services
2017 Ind. LEXIS 69
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Parents (Gr.J. and J.J.) have two young sons; younger child nearly drowned when Mother left him unattended in a bathtub for ~2 minutes; emergency services responded.
- DCS and police inspected the home, found it cluttered, foul-smelling, and without beds for the children; Department removed the children and placed them with grandparents and filed a CHINS petition.
- The Department required several home-based services; by the October 2015 fact-finding hearing Parents had completed or were complying with nearly all services and demonstrated engagement.
- Trial court found the children were CHINS and scheduled a dispositional hearing; Parents filed notices of appeal challenging the CHINS finding before the dispositional order was entered (premature notices).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, held appellate jurisdiction existed despite forfeiture, and reviewed the merits.
- On the merits the Supreme Court reversed the CHINS determination, concluding the Department failed to prove Parents were unlikely to provide needed care without the court’s coercive intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a CHINS finding is a final, appealable order | Parents argued the CHINS finding was appealable (they filed notices) | Department argued appeal was premature until disposition | Court: CHINS finding alone is not a final judgment; disposition is required for finality |
| Whether premature notices of appeal divest appellate jurisdiction | Parents: premature filing should not bar review | Department/Ct. of Appeals: premature notice forfeits right to appeal and warrants dismissal | Court: Premature (or late) notice forfeits the right to appeal but does not deprive appellate courts of jurisdiction; jurisdiction attaches when clerk notes completion of clerk’s record |
| Whether the Department proved CHINS element that court’s coercive intervention was necessary | Department: bathtub incident, home condition, and co-sleeping showed ongoing danger and need for intervention | Parents: they engaged and completed services; conditions improved by hearing date; unlikely to need court coercion | Court: Reversed CHINS finding — element three not proven by preponderance; state failed to show ongoing need for coercive intervention at time of hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (scope of CHINS inquiry and limits on state intrusion into family life)
- Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (distinction between forfeiture and jurisdiction; courts may reach merits despite procedural forfeiture)
- In re J.V., 875 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court of appeals considered merits despite premature notice in CHINS context)
- Alexander v. State, 4 N.E.3d 1169 (Ind. 2014) (Appellate Rule 8 timing: jurisdiction attaches on entry of notice of completion of clerk’s record)
- Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004) (dismissal with prejudice not always appropriate remedy for appellate rule noncompliance)