In the Matter of: D.W. (Minor Child), and, T.W. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 85
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- D.W., born Aug. 2008, was placed in foster care after the Indiana DCS filed a CHINS petition in Dec. 2011; the trial court adjudicated D.W. a CHINS in Feb. 2012.
- Visitation between Mother (T.W.) and D.W. was suspended Nov. 2012; in Feb. 2013 the permanency plan was changed to termination of parental rights.
- Mother moved (Jan. 2014) to modify the permanency plan, to reinstate visitation, and for a bonding assessment; multiple hearings followed.
- In June 2015 the trial court denied Mother’s motion to modify the permanency plan, granted DCS’s motion to discontinue visitation (ordering all parenting time cease), and directed scheduling of a termination hearing.
- Mother appealed (July 2015), at first characterizing the appeal as interlocutory; she later amended to claim the order was a final judgment.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and concluded the order was not a final, appealable judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s June 2015 order is a final, appealable judgment | Mother: The order terminating visitation and denying modification is final and appealable | DCS: The order is not a final judgment; court lacks appellate jurisdiction | Held: Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.F., 797 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (permanency-plan orders in CHINS proceedings are not final appealable judgments)
- In re E.W., 26 N.E.3d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (court treated an order ceasing all visitation as effectively final where permanency plan was APPLA)
- Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2012) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction when appealed order is not a final judgment)