In the Matter of J.K., A Child in Need of Services: M.K. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 385

Father and Mother, separated and divorcing, disputed placement/custody of 17-year-old J.K.; Marion County DCS filed CHINS petition after grandmother locked J.K. out and Mother made disparaging remarks to DCS.
At the initial fact-finding hearing Mother admitted CHINS; Father denied and sought placement or custody instead of an adjudication.
The trial judge repeatedly criticized the parties, called the dispute "ridiculous," "retarded," and "stupidity," ordered mediation, and urged the parties to resolve custody outside DCS.
After mediation failed, at a continued hearing the judge declared she was "adjudicating [J.K.] as a child in need of services" before taking sworn testimony and urged Father to waive a fact-finding hearing, warning he would "find [his] butt finding a new job" if he insisted on trial.
Father then admitted J.K. was a CHINS and the court adjudicated her as such; Father appealed claiming the judge’s comments deprived him of an impartial tribunal and coerced his admission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge’s comments and demeanor violated due process by depriving Father of an impartial tribunal	Judge’s hostile, repeated remarks and urging to waive fact-finding coerced Father and breached impartiality	Judge’s remarks were blunt but neutral; urging waiver explained practical benefit (transportation services) and did not show actual bias or coercion	Court held cumulative comments breached duty of impartiality and coerced Father’s admission; reversal of CHINS adjudication

Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997) (trial judges have latitude to manage courtroom and maintain control)
Taylor v. State, 530 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. 1988) (judicial questioning in bench trials permissible if impartial)
Harrington v. State, 584 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. 1992) (judges may be crusty but must be even-handed)
Everling v. State, 929 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010) (cumulative damaging comments can violate due process)
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS proceedings can interfere with parental rights and require due process protections)
In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014) (CHINS/termination proceedings subject to same due process analysis)
Abernathy v. State, 524 N.E.2d 12 (Ind. 1988) (judicial conduct showing bias can be prejudicial)
Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (trial judge expressing prehearing opinion violated impartiality)