In the Matter of D.P. (Minor Child), and M.P. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 143
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DCS filed a CHINS petition for D.P. (born 2007) alleging Father’s substance abuse, an incident where Father acted “bizarrely” and tested positive for multiple drugs, and D.P.’s educational neglect (23 missed school days).
- At the fact-finding hearing Mother admitted D.P. was a CHINS, apparently based on domestic violence charges pending against Father; Father did not appear (incarcerated).
- DCS’s case relied heavily on judicial notice of court records and filings and on Mother’s admission; live testimony about Father’s drug use was limited and partly excluded as hearsay.
- The trial court took judicial notice of the existence of a domestic battery felony case against Father and adjudicated D.P. a CHINS; it later ordered services for Father at disposition.
- The juvenile court’s CHINS finding was appealed by Father; the majority reversed, concluding DCS failed to prove all CHINS elements by a preponderance of admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supports CHINS adjudication | Evidence of Father’s substance history, domestic violence charge, and Mother’s admission show child endangered and court intervention necessary | Mother’s admission cannot bind Father; DCS failed to present admissible evidence on endangerment and necessity of coercion | Reversed — insufficient admissible evidence to prove CHINS elements |
| Whether trial court properly took judicial notice of Father’s incarceration and filings | Court may take judicial notice of court records (Odyssey/CMS) to show charges/existence of filings | Judicial notice cannot supply substantive factual proof of allegations; DCS offered no admissible proof of facts within filings | Limited notice proper only to existence of records; not to substantive facts within filings |
| Whether one parent’s admission can support CHINS as to non-admitting parent | Mother’s admission and evidence of domestic violence suffice to adjudicate CHINS as focused on child’s condition | Admission primarily accused Father; due process requires fact-finding when one parent denies allegations | One parent’s admission is not automatically sufficient; fact-specific inquiry required and DCS must still prove elements against non-admitting parent |
| Whether a single domestic violence charge automatically establishes need for court’s coercive intervention | Arrest/charge and prior history justify inferring ongoing risk and need for intervention | Charge alone, without evidence of impact on child or likelihood of continued danger, is insufficient to establish necessity of coercive intervention | Charge alone does not satisfy the separate CHINS element that coercive intervention is necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (CHINS burden and requirement to prove coercive intervention necessary; not every endangered child is a CHINS)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (one parent’s admission may be insufficient when facts require proof as to both parents; due process requires fact-finding)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2009) (one parent’s admission can support CHINS when admission establishes child’s condition caused by that parent)
- Baker v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. 2004) (trial judge has active role to secure evidence in child welfare matters but may not rely on inadmissible evidence)
- Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016) (recognizes statewide electronic case management system; court records readily accessible)
- K.B. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (a child’s exposure to domestic violence can support CHINS; single incident may suffice if impact on child shown)
- In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (DCS bears the preponderance burden to prove a child is a CHINS)