In the Matter of J.L., A Child in Need of Services, L.H., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 45A04-1702-JC-313

Child (born Jan 15, 1999) had prior DCS involvement and had not lived with Mother since 2012; Child had mental‑health diagnoses and intermittent placements including DOC.
After Child’s release from DOC in Feb 2016, Child lived with Mother’s father (Grandfather); he never obtained custody and later refused to continue caring for Child.
On July 28, 2016 DCS filed a CHINS petition alleging lack of care, unmet mental‑health needs, and no caregiver willing to assume custody.
Mother initially admitted in part, later withdrew the admission; counsel changes occurred (original appointed counsel left; new counsel Ortega appointed Jan 5, 2017).
Ortega moved to continue the Jan 11, 2017 fact‑finding hearing due to short notice; court denied because Child would turn 18 four days later, potentially terminating DCS jurisdiction.
At the hearing DCS presented evidence Child was not receiving needed mental‑health treatment and had no willing caregiver; Mother testified she was unwilling/ unable to care for Child. Court adjudicated Child a CHINS and set permanency for independent living.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance was abuse of discretion	Denial prejudiced Mother because new counsel had inadequate time to prepare and obtain evidence	Denial justified because Child would turn 18 in four days and DCS would lose jurisdiction; delay would prejudice the State	Denial not an abuse of discretion; no showing of prejudice by Mother
Whether evidence was sufficient to adjudicate CHINS under I.C. § 31‑34‑1‑1	Insufficient: Mother argued she had been involved with Child’s plan, was temporarily unable to care for Child, and had not abandoned Child	Evidence showed Mother and Grandfather were unwilling/unable to provide care or obtain treatment; Child not receiving needed services and unlikely to receive them without court intervention	Sufficient evidence supported CHINS adjudication; affirmed

F.M. v. N.B., 979 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance and abuse of discretion)
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (continuance requires showing of good cause)
In re B.H., 44 N.E.3d 745 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (party seeking continuance must be free from fault)
In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (CHINS burden: preponderance; appellate review limits)
In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (elements required for CHINS adjudication)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (three‑element formulation of CHINS under I.C. § 31‑34‑1‑1)
In re V.H., 967 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishable CHINS reversal where parent actively sought services)