In the Matter of: A.K., A Child in Need of Services: J.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 67A01-1605-JC-1111

Child A.K., born June 2015, was the subject of an ongoing CHINS matter involving Parents’ other children who had previously been removed.
DCS sought and obtained an emergency order to remove the newborn after failed welfare checks and Parents’ noncompliance in the ongoing CHINS case.
During a June 18, 2015 welfare check, Father brandished a gun and barricaded himself, Mother, and the newborn in the home for ~15 hours; Father made suicidal/threatening statements and was later arrested.
DCS filed a CHINS petition (June 22, 2015); the juvenile court initially allowed the child to remain with Mother under conditions (no contact by Father, DCS-approved caregivers, social media restriction).
A two-day fact-finding hearing (Dec 8, 2015 and Jan 26, 2016) adjudicated the child a CHINS; court ordered services for Father. Father appealed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether issuance of emergency removal order violated Father’s due process rights	Emergency order was invalid because DCS did not demonstrate an emergency by sworn testimony/affidavit	Emergency order was proper because the issuing judge reviewed court records showing prior removals, refusal of access, and safety concerns	Court held no due process violation: judge considered court record (statutory alternative to affidavit) and evidence supported an emergency order
Whether juvenile court abused discretion by admitting evidence of Father’s prior DCS history and related criminal charges	Admission of prior DCS history/criminal charges was prejudicial and improper	Evidence was relevant to pattern of neglect/abuse; Father himself elicited much of this testimony (invited error)	Court held no abuse of discretion: evidence admissible and invited by Father’s own questioning

In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard in CHINS proceedings)
In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (Mathews balancing applies to CHINS process questions)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for procedural due process)
In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (procedural protections in juvenile cases and Mathews application)
Matter of J.L.V., Jr., 667 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (admission of prior DCS involvement with other children can be relevant and admissible)
White v. State, 54 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. 1944) (party cannot complain of error it invited)
Columbian Rope Co. v. Todd, 631 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)

The juvenile court’s CHINS adjudication and admission of challenged evidence were affirmed.