Background

• DCS recommended filing a CHINS petition for J.F. on Feb 16, 2015, citing domestic violence between Mother and the father, parental alcohol/substance concerns, Mother’s mental-health concerns, and Mother’s refusal to cooperate with the DCS investigation.
• On Feb 23, 2015, the juvenile court held a probable-cause hearing in Mother’s absence (she received notice but did not remain); the court found probable cause and the court entered an Order on probable cause on Mar 4, 2015.
• The court later held the statutorily required initial, detention, fact-finding (Apr 27 and May 28, 2015), and dispositional (July 27, 2015) hearings; on June 30, 2015 the child was adjudicated CHINS and on Aug 15, 2015 the court issued a dispositional order requiring reunification services.
• Mother appealed on Aug 26, 2015, but her appellate brief challenged the March 4, 2015 probable-cause Order even though she did not timely appeal that Order or obtain interlocutory certification.
• The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the CHINS adjudication on the merits; on rehearing it addressed whether the probable-cause Order was appealable and held it was interlocutory and not a final, appealable order because it did not dispose of the controversy.
• The court emphasized its preference to decide cases on the merits but concluded the proper final, appealable order was the dispositional adjudication; because Mother did not pursue an interlocutory appeal of the probable-cause Order, that challenge was not properly before the court.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Bacon v. Bacon, 877 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (final-judgment requirement and interlocutory-appeal certification rule)
• Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 2003) (definition of final judgment disposing of all issues)
• Kelly v. Levandoski, 825 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (preference for resolving cases on the merits when possible)
• In re J.V., 875 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (dispositional order creates a final, appealable CHINS judgment)