In the Matter of: L.G. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and M.S. (Mother) & C.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
7A905-1607-JC-1558
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Parents M.S. (Mother) and C.G. (Father) had two children: L.G. (born Mar. 2014) and a younger sibling (born Mar. 2015) who died in November 2015. Both infants tested positive for marijuana at birth.
- At sibling’s death, the body exhibited signs of severe malnourishment and dehydration; the coroner opined the child was underdeveloped and more susceptible to asphyxia due to her weakened condition.
- Parents missed the sibling’s six‑month well visit, did not seek immediate medical care when the sibling was found unresponsive, and delayed taking the body to the hospital for at least 24 hours.
- DCS removed L.G. from parents’ custody the day the report was made and filed a CHINS petition alleging L.G. was seriously endangered by parental neglect.
- The trial court adjudicated L.G. a CHINS and ordered out‑of‑home placement with supervised in‑home visits and reunification services; parents appeal the CHINS finding and denial of immediate in‑home placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parents) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for CHINS adjudication | Sibling’s death was accidental and does not prove neglect of L.G.; no direct evidence L.G. was neglected | Sibling’s severe malnourishment, parental failure to seek care, and delay in reporting show parental neglect creating ongoing risk to L.G. | Court affirmed: findings support that parents’ neglect endangered child and CHINS adjudication was proper |
| Denial of in‑home placement during CHINS | Parents requested L.G. be returned to their custody during proceedings | DCS and CASA supported continued out‑of‑home placement given circumstances and ongoing criminal investigation; best interest and safety require removal | Court affirmed: trial court did not err in ordering out‑of‑home placement with supervised visits and monitoring |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.R., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (burden and standard of proof in CHINS proceedings)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (elements required for CHINS adjudication)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (interpreting statutory elements for CHINS: parental actions, unmet needs, and need for coercive intervention)
- In re T.H., 856 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (reversing CHINS where the rectified condition could not support adjudication)
- R.S. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (prior parental misconduct insufficient alone for CHINS absent current risk)
- In re A.H., 913 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (court may intervene before a similar tragedy occurs)
- E.R. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 729 N.E.2d 1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction over placement decisions)