In re the Matter of: N.P., L.P., B.P., and C.P., (Minor Children), A.P. (Mother) and A.P. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A04-1703-JC-446
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother A.P. and Father A.P.) have four children removed after DCS received an August 2016 neglect report alleging no running water, strong odors, and all children sharing one twin mattress. DCS obtained custody and a preliminary CHINS order.
- DCS’s CHINS petition alleged unsafe, unsanitary housing and inability to provide necessities; it did not allege parental mental-health problems.
- By the fact-finding hearing (Nov. 29, 2016) parents had moved to a new apartment with working utilities, beds for each child, and Father employed; DCS found the new apartment small but appropriate.
- At the hearing DCS elicited testimony about both parents’ mental-health diagnoses and Mother’s self-medication; parents objected that mental-health issues were not pled and they had no notice to defend them.
- The trial court admitted the mental-health testimony, adjudicated the children CHINS under I.C. § 31-34-1-1(1), and ordered services (drug screens, psychological evaluation, continued home-based services).
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held DCS should have given notice/amended the petition to include mental-health allegations and found the remaining evidence insufficient to support CHINS adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents were given adequate notice to defend mental-health allegations introduced at the fact-finding hearing | Parents failed to timely object to early testimony; Trial Rule 15(B) allows treating unpled issues as tried by consent; court may consider family condition at trial | Petition did not include mental-health allegations; DCS should have amended petition or given notice; parents did object when mental health was used as a basis for adjudication | Court: Parents did not impliedly consent; DCS had obligation to amend pleadings; admitting mental-health evidence without notice was error |
| Whether evidence (absent improperly admitted mental-health testimony) was sufficient to adjudicate children CHINS under I.C. § 31-34-1-1(1) | Family still showed employment/housing instability and need for coercive intervention to secure services; prior service-seeking unsuccessful | Housing and utilities problems were cured by hearing; Father employed and housing acceptable under DCS standards; no evidence children were endangered in parents’ care; coercive intervention not shown | Court: Evidence insufficient without mental-health testimony; DCS failed to show continued coercive intervention was necessary; CHINS adjudications reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (elements DCS must prove for CHINS)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (court may consider family condition at time of trial)
- Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review when trial court issues findings and conclusions)
- Maybaum v. Putnam Cty. Office of Family & Children, 723 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (petition requirements serve to give parents notice of allegations)
- Matter of D.T., 547 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (courts must avoid adjudicating CHINS based on class-based parenting standards)
- Matter of Dull, 521 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (cited on limits of imposing personal standards on parents)