In the Matter of Eq.W., M.W., A.W., S.W., and Ez.W. (Minor Children) V.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 124 N.E.3d 1201

Background

Parents (V.B. and L.S.) were arrested June 27, 2017 for suspected intoxication while caring for five children; DCS removed the children and filed a CHINS petition (first petition).
At the fact‑finding hearing DCS sought but was denied telephonic drug‑screen expert testimony and presented no additional evidence; the court dismissed the first petition without prejudice for failure to prove CHINS.
The day after dismissal, DCS filed a second CHINS petition containing largely the same allegations and additional drug‑screen results and other evidence obtained after the first hearing.
At the contested hearing on the second petition the court heard testimony about the children’s lack of schooling, unsafe housing, and parents’ substance abuse and adjudicated all five children CHINS; children remained with paternal grandmother.
Mother appealed, arguing the second petition was barred by res judicata (claim preclusion); the Court of Appeals affirmed and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court held claim preclusion applies to CHINS cases but found Mother waived the issue by not timely raising it in the trial court and found no fundamental error; the CHINS adjudication was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Whether res judicata (claim preclusion) applies to CHINS proceedings	Res judicata should bar refiling of a CHINS petition when evidence could have been presented in the first proceeding	CHINS are sui generis; evidence of prior conduct is routinely admissible and refiling should be permitted to protect children	Claim preclusion applies; a subsequent CHINS petition is barred unless it alleges material facts that could not have been included in the dismissed action (i.e., new post‑dismissal facts)
Whether Mother preserved the res judicata objection for appeal	No written or sufficiently specific oral motion was made at the second hearing; closing argument did not preserve the defense	Trial courts should not be required to raise res judicata sua sponte; party must timely raise it	Mother failed to preserve the issue; she waived it by not moving to dismiss on res judicata grounds at trial
Whether a trial court must sua sponte apply res judicata in CHINS cases	Trial court has a duty to protect parents’ due process and should dismiss precluded refilings on its own motion	Courts should decide issues when parties present them; judges need a record and advocacy to rule	Trial courts are not required to sua sponte raise res judicata; parties must bring the issue to the court’s attention
Whether the trial court’s failure to address res judicata was fundamental error	The error was so obvious that the court should have acted without a party’s objection	Absent a timely objection, the failure is not necessarily fundamental; review is narrow	No fundamental error; affirmation of CHINS adjudication stands

Key Cases Cited

In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (CHINS burden and due process principles)
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (parental rights and CHINS procedural safeguards)
Ind. State Ethics Comm’n v. Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988 (Ind. 2014) (elements of claim preclusion)
Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013) (res judicata prevents repeated litigation)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy analogy for preclusion)
Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (effect of dismissals without prejudice on claim preclusion)
Matter of J.L.V., Jr., 667 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (relevance of parents’ character and past acts in CHINS context)