In the Matter of K.D. & K.S. S.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
962 N.E.2d 1249
| Ind. | 2012Background
- DCS investigated K.D. and K.S. in CHINS proceedings involving Stepfather, an untreated sex offender, and Mother.
- Mother admitted CHINS; Stepfather denied and sought a fact-finding hearing.
- Court converted Stepfather's requested fact-finding hearing into a contested dispositional hearing after In re N.E. v. DCS (2010).
- Trial court held a contested dispositional hearing, not a fact-finding hearing for Stepfather.
- Court of Appeals majority held Stepfather was denied due process for lack of a fact-finding hearing; transfer granted.
- This Court remands to provide Stepfather a proper fact-finding hearing and clarifies CHINS adjudication vs. disposition procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a fact-finding hearing when a parent admits but another denies CHINS. | Stepfather contends he was entitled to a fact-finding hearing on CHINS. | DCS argues a dispositional hearing suffices after admission. | A fact-finding hearing is required for the entire matter. |
| How to harmonize conflicting statutes 31-34-10-8 and 31-34-11-1 in mixed admissions. | Admitting parent should not trap other parent into a deny-and-face-adjudication path. | Court should proceed under existing procedural paths. | When one parent admits and another denies, the court must conduct a fact-finding hearing for the entire matter. |
| Whether a contested dispositional hearing cures due process faults at CHINS adjudication. | Dispositional hearing cannot cure lack of fact-finding hearing. | Dispositional hearing provides adequate process. | Contested dispositional hearing does not substitute for a due-process fact-finding hearing. |
| Whether separate fact-finding analyses per parent are ever required at CHINS adjudication. | In some cases, per-parent analysis is necessary for due process. | CHINS adjudication focuses on the child, not per-parent guilt in all cases. | There are fact-sensitive situations requiring separate fact-finding for each parent. |
| What is the remedy or next step on remand. | Stepfather should receive a fact-finding hearing. | Proceedings should continue with proper procedures. | Remand for a full fact-finding hearing on the CHINS adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.E. v. DCS, 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS adjudication focus on child; need for fact-finding when parents challenge coercive intervention)
- In re K.D. v. DCS, 942 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses per-parent analysis and CHINS adjudication scope)
- In re J.Q., 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (due process concerns in CHINS/TPR contexts)
- A.C. v. Marion County Dep't of Child Servs., 905 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (dispositional vs. predispositional evidentiary considerations)
- In re C.B., 865 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (predispositional reports and hearsay considerations in dispositional phase)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (juvenile court parens patriae framework)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing factors for hearings)