118 N.E.3d 70
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Three children (born 2012, 2014, 2015) were removed from mother’s home after an incident in December 2017 where children under five were left alone; mother was arrested for neglect and had an earlier Informal Adjustment (IA) for substance-abuse concerns.
- Father, the biological father listed on birth certificates, had been caring for the children regularly (holidays/weekends), obtained housing, benefits, daycare, and insurance, and cared for them without incident after removal.
- DCS filed CHINS petitions and pursued adjudication despite acknowledging that while the children were with Father they did not need DCS services; DCS’s concern was that Father lacked legal custody and the children could revert to Mother.
- The fact-finding hearing began Jan. 16, 2018 (continued to Feb. 13); court adjudicated the children CHINS in March 2018 and entered dispositional/parental-participation orders in April 2018.
- Father later secured custody in a separate proceeding (Aug. 6, 2018); DCS moved to dismiss wardship and Father appealed the CHINS adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DCS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coercive court intervention was necessary to provide services (CHINS element) | DCS failed to prove coercive intervention was necessary at the time of fact-finding because children were safe in Father’s care and receiving needed services | DCS argued it was required to pursue CHINS because children were at legal risk of being returned to Mother (noncustodial father lacked legal custody) | Reversed CHINS adjudication: coercive intervention was not shown to be necessary at time of fact-finding |
| Whether the services ordered for Father were supported by the record | Orders imposing standard parental-participation services were not supported by evidence of need | DCS largely conceded Father did not need case management and recommended only parenting education as possibly appropriate | Moot: CHINS dismissed and parental-participation orders no longer in effect, so no relief available on appeal |
| Whether dismissal of CHINS proceedings renders appeal moot | Father argued reversal could provide real relief (it did) so appeal not moot | DCS moved to remand but case remained justiciable because reversal can afford relief | Adjudication reversal provides real relief; appeal not moot on CHINS issue |
| Whether amended Ind. Code § 31-30-1-13 allows CHINS court to modify custody | Father sought custody; argued CHINS court should consider custody to prevent return to mother | DCS argued concurrent jurisdiction/ statutory duties permitted pursuing CHINS and custody concerns absent adjudication | Court held amended § 31-30-1-13 permits CHINS court to consider/modify custody (subject to proper notice/opportunity to be heard); CHINS court could have addressed custody modification |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard for CHINS adjudication and review)
- In re R.S., 987 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App.) (focus CHINS adjudication on child’s condition at time of hearing)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind.) (appellate standard of review for juvenile cases)
- In re J.B., 61 N.E.3d 308 (Ind. Ct. App.) (prior interpretation of § 31-30-1-13 and limits on CHINS court modifying custody)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (policy favoring reasonable opportunity for parents to participate in services)
- In re Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1991) (mootness doctrine)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (reversal of CHINS adjudication can provide real relief)
- A.C. v. Marion Cty. Dep’t of Child Svcs., 905 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App.) (parental-participation orders must relate to evidenced behavior or circumstances)
- In re V.H., 967 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App.) (limits on court-ordered services for parents)