In the matter of: L.E. G.E. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 29 N.E.3d 769

G.E. had parental rights to four children terminated in 2000 after findings of neglect, filthy home conditions, poor school attendance for children, and relapse to substance abuse despite treatment efforts.
DCS maintained a substantiated report listing G.E. as a perpetrator of child neglect; that record later affected her employment at a child care center (Pinnacle), where she was initially barred from working with children.
In November 2013 G.E. petitioned under Indiana Code § 31-33-27-5 to expunge the DCS substantiated report; a hearing was held February 7, 2014.
G.E.’s sole evidence at the hearing was her testimony that she had been drug-free since 2003, remained in contact with her children/grandchildren, and had no further juvenile-court involvement or criminal convictions.
The juvenile court denied the petition the same day; G.E.’s motion to correct errors was denied and she appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether G.E satisfied § 31-33-27-5’s clear-and-convincing standard to expunge a substantiated DCS report	G.E. argued her testimony (drug-free since 2003, family contact, no further court or criminal involvement) showed little likelihood of future perpetration	DCS relied on CHINS/termination records showing prior neglect, relapse history, and facts relevant to child-care employer safety concerns	Denied: G.E. did not meet clear-and-convincing burden; her testimony alone was insufficient
Whether the report lacked current probative value to justify retention by DCS	G.E. argued her changed circumstances remove the need for DCS to retain the report	DCS argued the report remains probative because statutes/regulations require DCS to share perpetrator histories with child-care providers and such histories are relevant to licensing/employment decisions	Denied: Even if future-risk element were met, the record retained probative value given child-care regulatory scheme

Garcia v. State, 979 N.E.2d 156 (discussing statutory interpretation and plain-language approach)
Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369 (construing “shall” as mandatory and “may” as permissive in statutes)
An–Hung Yao v. State, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (defining clear-and-convincing standard)
In re Marriage of Huss, 888 N.E.2d 1238 (appellate review of sufficiency under clear-and-convincing standard)
Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (standards for appellate review of factfinder’s clear-and-convincing determinations)
J.M. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, 975 N.E.2d 1283 (affirming trial-court judgment sustainable on any record basis)
Petition of Meyer, 471 N.E.2d 718 (noting testimony-only evidence may be insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard)