In the Matter of: K.S. (Minor Child), and C.S. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.), 09A04-1604-JC-872

Father began acting in a custodial role for three children (twins M.H. and B.H., and K.S.) after dating Mother; Father is the legal father of K.S. but not of the twins.
DCS received a December 23, 2015 report alleging domestic violence, physical abuse, and drug use in the home; Father admitted occasional marijuana use and refused a drug screen; Mother admitted marijuana use.
On January 5, 2016, Mother and the children submitted to oral swab drug screens (Father declined); DCS removed the children and placed K.S. in foster care; DCS filed CHINS petitions for the children.
At the February 17–18, 2016 fact-finding hearing for K.S., the juvenile court said it would not consider drug-screen results unless the parties stipulated or a testing-agency witness testified, but nevertheless relied on alleged positive THC results in adjudicating K.S. a CHINS.
Father complained the court considered drug-screen results that were not formally admitted and denied him an opportunity to contest them; the court adjudicated K.S. a CHINS and ordered services and continued foster placement.
The Court of Appeals held Father was deprived of due process because the juvenile court considered drug-screen results that had not been admitted and denied Father a meaningful opportunity to contest them; the adjudication was reversed and remanded for a new fact-finding hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father was denied due process when the juvenile court considered drug-screen results not admitted into evidence	Father: Court violated due process by considering unadmitted drug-screen results after promising not to, depriving him of the chance to contest them	State: Error was harmless; Father’s own testimony admitted knowledge of how children tested positive and he waived some objections	Held: Reversed — due process violation; drug-screen results were considered despite court’s statement and without opportunity to contest, not harmless
Whether Father was denied a contested fact-finding hearing as to the twins	Father: As acting custodian, he had right to a contested hearing for the twins	State: Separate petitions and hearings were held for the twins; not properly presented on this appeal	Held: Court declined to address the twins’ claim on this appeal for lack of record — better raised in direct appeal of the twins’ adjudication

In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014) (due process protections at all stages of CHINS proceedings are vital)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for balancing private interest, risk of error, and governmental interest in procedural-due-process analysis)
In the Matter of E.M., 581 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (state’s compelling interest in child welfare)
In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.F., 883 N.E.2d 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (parents must be permitted to view and respond to evidence supporting adjudication)
In re Involuntary Termination of Parent–Child Relationship of B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for finding fundamental error)