130 N.E.3d 109
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Sept. 25, 2017 the Hamilton County DCS filed a CHINS petition for three children after one sibling suffered injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma; the children were removed from Mother's care.
- A factfinding hearing was originally set for Jan. 18, 2018; Mother sought a continuance on Jan. 17 and requested a non-contested hearing 30–45 days later.
- The juvenile court held a non-contested factfinding hearing on Feb. 26, 2018 and adjudicated the children CHINS on Mar. 1, 2018.
- On Oct. 26, 2018 Mother moved to dismiss the CHINS case as to J.S., arguing the factfinding hearing occurred beyond the 120-day limit in Ind. Code § 31-34-11-1 and dismissal was therefore mandatory.
- The juvenile court denied the post-adjudication motion to dismiss; Mother appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ind. Code § 31-34-11-1(d) permits dismissal after a CHINS adjudication when factfinding occurred beyond 60/120 days | The statutory time limits are mandatory; because the factfinding hearing occurred after 120 days, dismissal is required even after adjudication | The statutory dismissal remedy is not available to collaterally attack an adjudication entered in the child’s interest; Mother lacks an absolute post-adjudication right to dismissal | The dismissal sanction is not a vehicle to collaterally attack a CHINS adjudication; the juvenile court properly denied the post-adjudication motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of J.R., 98 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App.) (holding § 31-34-11-1 timeframe mandatory and failure to comply is grounds for dismissal)
- Matter of T.T., 110 N.E.3d 441 (Ind. Ct. App.) (rejecting waiver-by-consent argument and affirming 120-day deadline cannot be extended by parties)
- N.L. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind.) (stating CHINS adjudication’s purpose is child protection, not parental punishment)
- Indiana Univ. Health S. Ind. Physicians, Inc. v. Noel, 114 N.E.3d 479 (Ind. Ct. App.) (discussing conflict between statutes and procedural rules)