In the Matter of F.S., T.W., M.F., and B.F. (Minor Children) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services for Crawford County, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 147

Mother (B.S.) and father lived with four children in Crawford County; DCS had prior contacts with the family and a CHINS case recently closed.
Multiple anonymous reports alleged parental drug use, drug dealing, domestic violence in front of children, and school absences; DCS opened assessments and made three home visits in March–April 2015.
Assessing agents (DCS caseworkers and the probation officer) observed the children and home and found no visible signs of drug use, drug paraphernalia, or recent domestic violence; parents repeatedly declined some requested drug screens but supervised tests were negative.
DCS nevertheless petitioned under Ind. Code § 31-33-8-7 to compel interviews of the two oldest children after parents refused consent; the trial court granted DCS’s motion following a hearing.
Mother appealed, arguing § 31-33-8-7 was unconstitutional as applied because the court ordered interviews based solely on uncorroborated anonymous reports; the trial court stayed the order pending appeal.
The Court of Appeals held DCS must present some evidentiary support beyond anonymous reports before a court may require a parent to make a child available for a DCS interview; it reversed the trial court’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appeal is moot	Mother: case presents recurring constitutional issue; stay preserved review; evidence the State later obtained (post-appeal) is outside record	State: Mother later consented and children were interviewed; appeal moot because no relief available	Court declined to dismiss as moot—issue of great public interest and potential collateral consequences justified review
Whether Ind. Code § 31-33-8-7 (as applied) violated due process by allowing compulsory child interviews based only on anonymous reports	Mother: statute unconstitutional as applied; court may only compel interviews if DCS shows some evidentiary support (e.g., reasonable suspicion) beyond uncorroborated reports	State: Parents have fundamental rights but DCS has compelling parens patriae interest; statute permits interview orders after hearing and does not require heightened evidentiary threshold; A.H. supports permitting interviews without prior corroboration	Court: § 31-33-8-7 can be applied constitutionally, but here DCS presented no evidence beyond anonymous reports and multiple unremarkable home visits; good cause requires some evidentiary showing, so the order compelling interviews was reversed

Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (family integrity and parental freedom are protected by the Due Process Clause)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (procedural due process requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (tests for substantive due process and fundamental rights)
Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) (investigative interviews without parental consent can violate constitutional rights when no reasonable suspicion exists)
In re A.H., 992 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (panel previously upheld court orders compelling DCS interviews without corroborating evidence)
McIntosh v. Melroe Co., 729 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. 2000) (distinguishing procedural and substantive due process considerations)