In the Matter of A.A. (Minor Child) Child in Need of Services, C.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
52A02-1611-JC-2684
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Shortly after birth, DCS removed A.A. (Child) from Mother (C.A.) and filed a CHINS petition alleging Mother’s violent relationship posed a threat. Mother was appointed counsel.
- The fact-finding hearing was scheduled for August 17, 2016 after several continuances. Mother previously filed pro se motions complaining about counsel; those filings were struck.
- Mother did not appear at an August 3 status hearing; counsel remained of record. Counsel reported no recent contact with Mother and said he mailed notice of the fact-finding date to her last-known address.
- At the August 17 fact-finding hearing, Mother was absent; her attorney orally moved to withdraw without prior written notice and the court granted the withdrawal.
- The court proceeded with the fact-finding hearing in Mother’s absence, adjudicated Child a CHINS, and later held disposition; Mother later explained she missed hearings due to a separate attachment warrant. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s due process rights were violated when counsel orally withdrew without notice and the court held the fact-finding hearing in Mother’s absence | Oral, no-notice withdrawal prevented Mother from making an informed choice to appear pro se or obtain new counsel; statutory rights (cross-examination, present evidence) were effectively denied | (Implicit) Mother chose not to appear and previously expressed dissatisfaction; no invited-error for failure to attend | Reversed: court found due process violation — withdrawal without required notice and proceeding in Mother’s absence rendered the CHINS adjudication fundamentally unfair; remanded for a proper fact-finding hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014) (due-process protections in CHINS are vital and courts must provide state-imparted procedural rights)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (Mathews balancing controls process required in CHINS proceedings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for assessing what process is due)
- In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (state-created procedural entitlements must be honored)
- D.A. v. Monroe Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 869 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (similar holding that a parent was denied due process when counsel withdrew and hearing proceeded)