In the Matter of D.B. (Minor Child), a Child in Need of Services: D.B.(Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 612
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Child (born 2012) lost mother to murder by mother's boyfriend; child was in home during homicide and removed by DCS.
- Biological father (Father) signed paternity, had limited contact after child was four months old and lived in Minnesota; last saw child July 2013.
- DCS placed child with godmother in Indiana and filed a CHINS petition; Father contacted DCS about a week after removal and sought placement.
- DCS initiated the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) process for Father; background checks and a home study were incomplete at the CHINS factfinding hearing.
- Juvenile court found the child a CHINS, citing Father’s long absence, lack of background checks/home study, and need for a gradual transition; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ICPC apply to placement with an out-of-state biological parent? | ICPC process is appropriate and should govern interstate placement evaluation. | ICPC does not apply to placement with a biological parent. | ICPC does not apply to placement with a biological parent; it governs foster or pre-adoptive placements only. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to adjudicate the child a CHINS under I.C. §31-34-1-1? | Father’s absence, lack of completed checks/home study, and potential trauma justify CHINS finding. | Father is presumed fit; DCS failed to prove by preponderance that Father’s actions endangered the child or that child’s needs would not be met. | Insufficient evidence: DCS failed to prove Father unfit or that Father’s care would seriously endanger the child; CHINS adjudication reversed. |
| Can DCS rely on lack of information about a parent to meet its burden? | DCS argued incomplete investigations justified caution and the juvenile court’s reliance on ICPC status. | Lack of information does not meet DCS’s burden to prove unfitness; presumption of parental fitness remains. | DCS cannot meet its burden merely by showing it lacks information; presumption of parental fitness stands. |
| Should traumatic impact from moving child factor into CHINS without proving parental unfitness? | Removing child to out-of-state parent may cause additional trauma; gradual transition is required. | Trauma concerns alone do not establish statutory elements of CHINS absent showing of parent-caused endangerment or unmet needs. | Trauma concerns are relevant to placement planning but do not substitute for DCS’s burden to prove CHINS. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.L. v. State, 989 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for statutory interpretation de novo)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (purpose of ICPC to facilitate interstate placement and monitoring)
- In re Adoption of Infants H., 904 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. 2009) (ICPC safeguards for out-of-state adoptive placements)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (burden of proof and elements required for CHINS adjudication)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental liberty interest and limitations on state intrusion)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (three-element framework for CHINS proceedings)
- In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (DCS bears burden to produce evidence contradicting a parent's claimed plans or fitness)