In the Matter of G.W. (Minor Child) A.W. (Mother) and J.W. (Stepfather) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 512
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- DCS sought to interview G.W., a non-subject child in the home, as part of a safety assessment after M.F. recanted allegations against Stepfather.
- M.F. initially alleged sexual abuse by Stepfather; later recanted and denied diary entries; G.W. had not alleged abuse.
- Mother refused to permit the interview of G.W.; DCS petitioned the court under IC 31-33-8-7 and IC 31-32-13-1 to compel.
- Trial court granted the petition, finding authority to interview G.W. based on 31-33-8-7(a)(3) and 31-32-13-1, and noting efforts to obtain consent.
- DCS proposed an interview at Susie’s Place in Bloomington, arguing necessity to assess G.W.’s condition and consistent with the statute.
- Mother appealed, challenging the statutory basis and the intrusiveness of a forensic interview of a non-subject child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IC 31-33-8-7 authorize compelling a non-subject child’s interview? | Mother contends no authorization for non-subject child interview. | DCS asserts the statute requires assessing other children in the home and allows court-ordered interviews. | Yes, statute permits interview of other children when reasonably necessary. |
| Is a forensic interview of G.W. permissible under the statute and due process? | Mother argues intrusion and lack of statutory basis; interview is unlawful and unnecessary. | DCS argues interview is part of assessing conditions of other children; safeguards and consent efforts are present. | Interview permitted; court properly ordered interview under statutory framework. |
| Did the trial court have proper authority to order the interview without parental consent? | Mother asserts lack of consent and statutory safeguards; order exceeds authority. | DCS demonstrates reasonable efforts and good cause; court may compel interview with or without consent. | Yes, authority supported; order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.H., 856 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (parental rights limited by state interest in child welfare)
- G.B. v. Dearborn Cnty. Div. of Family & Children, 754 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (parens patriae authority to intervene in abuse/neglect cases)
- KPMG, Peat Marwick, LLP v. Carmel Fin. Corp., 784 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (statutes relating to same subject construed in pari materia)
- Am. Heritage Banco, Inc. v. McNaughton, 879 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (avoid reading into statute what legislature did not express)
- Klotz v. Hoyt, 900 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2009) (statutory interpretation aims for logical harmony)
- Humphreys v. Day, 735 N.E.2d 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (statute interpreted as a whole with safeguards)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are fundamental liberties)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (standard for state intervention in parenting decisions)
- E.P. v. Marion Co. Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (parens patriae and parent rights considerations in action)