In re the Matter of: B.D., W.D.D., and L.D. (Minor Children) Children in Need of Services and W.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A04-1701-JC-2
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- DCS filed CHINS petitions in May 2016 after reports the three children were dirty, out of school, homeless, and involved in an unrestrained rollover car accident while in Mother’s care.
- Mother admitted at the fact‑finding hearing that she cannot provide stable, safe housing and needs court‑ordered services; she agreed to participate in DCS services. The court took her admission under advisement pending hearing on Father.
- Father lives in Virginia, receives $733/month disability for depression/anxiety, has a history of a suicide attempt and ongoing mental‑health treatment, had limited in‑person contact with the children for about a year, and claimed he could care for them with support from relatives.
- DCS caseworker and GAL testified the children have behavioral needs and are in therapy; DCS recommended continued foster placement and opposed immediate placement with Father without transition and ICPC approval. Caseworker expressed concerns about Father’s financial stability, mental health, and lack of engagement with services.
- The trial court denied Father’s custody motion, concluded placement with Father was not in the children’s best interests (citing Mother’s progress in services, Father’s out‑of‑state residence and mental‑health issues, and the children’s therapeutic needs), accepted Mother’s CHINS admission, and adjudicated the children CHINS; dispositional order awarded placement responsibility to DCS with reunification as the permanency plan.
Issues
| Issue | DCS's Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports CHINS adjudication | Mother’s admission plus evidence re: Mother’s inability to provide stable housing, Father’s mental‑health, limited contact, and the children’s therapeutic needs show children need care unlikely without court coercion | Father argues he can provide for children, is stable now, and court coercion is unnecessary; custody denial doesn’t prove CHINS | Court affirmed CHINS: Mother’s admission + surrounding evidence (including custody decision, Father’s MH and children’s needs) support finding coercive intervention necessary |
| Whether the court erred by considering custody denial in CHINS analysis | DCS: custody denial is relevant evidence about best interests and need for court intervention | Father: custody denial is not a finding of unfitness and cannot substitute for CHINS proof | Court held the custody ruling could be considered with other evidence; it did not solely rely on custody denial |
| Adequacy of dispositional order | DCS: dispositional order may incorporate predispositional report; findings and reasons were incorporated adequately | Father: dispositional order lacks required specific findings and should be remanded | Court held dispositional order met statutory requirements by incorporation and existing orders; no remand needed |
| Whether Mother’s admission automatically controls when another parent denies CHINS | DCS: Mother’s admission is a basis but court must conduct fact‑finding when a co‑parent disputes | Father: (implicit) admission shouldn’t control without full evaluation of Father | Court followed precedent requiring fact‑finding; Mother’s admission was considered but court evaluated entire record before adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility; review evidence supporting the trial court and reasonable inferences)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (when one parent admits CHINS and the other denies, court must hold a fact‑finding hearing on the whole matter)
- Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (trial court should not immediately accept one parent’s admission if the other contests; fact‑finding required)
- In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (CHINS statute allows intervention before a tragedy; focus is on endangerment and need for protection rather than punishment)