In the Matter of: L.S., C.S., and W.S. (Minor Children in Need of Services) J.S. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
82 N.E.3d 333
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father and Mother are parents of three children (L.S., C.S., W.S.). A prior 2014 CHINS case had closed; L.S. had prior mental-health diagnoses and therapy.
- On October 28, 2016, police responded to a domestic incident involving Father, Mother, and the children; Mother reported physical violence by Father including belt strikes and neck-holding; DCS filed a CHINS petition and a protection order barred Father's contact with Mother and the children.
- A multi-day CHINS fact-finding hearing occurred Jan 12–Apr 21, 2017; the court issued its final order April 24, 2017, denying DCS's CHINS petition.
- At hearing: Mother had a protective order, planned dissolution, housing and employment steps, and continued therapy for L.S.; Father was unemployed, transient, and had limited participation in services and in the children's therapy.
- Therapist Judy Phillips testified L.S. showed improvement in therapy, did not meet criteria for DMDD, and recommended no contact between Father and L.S. until Father accepted responsibility and completed therapy; the court nonetheless found coercive juvenile intervention unnecessary given protective measures taken.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DCS/Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of supervised visitation | Court erred by denying Father's repeated requests for supervised visits | Visitation jurisdiction was later referred to dissolution court; interlocutory juvenile rulings rendered moot | Moot — issue not decided on merits (dissolution court controls parenting time) |
| 2) Due process re: scheduling and limited time to present evidence | Court violated due process by exceeding statutory 60-day fact-finding window and by giving only ~12 minutes to present evidence | First hearing occurred within 60 days; continuances were consented to by Father's counsel; Father had multiple hearing days and testified | No due process violation found |
| 3) Whether trial court erred in denying CHINS petition | Evidence of domestic violence, alleged physical abuse of children, and cessation of L.S.'s medication warranted CHINS adjudication (including rebuttable presumption) | Evidence showed no ongoing domestic violence after protection order; therapist reported L.S. improving in therapy; no competent evidence of child injuries proving presumption; coercive intervention unnecessary | Trial court's denial of CHINS petition was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- J.A. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re G.P.), 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014) (due process protections in CHINS proceedings)
- S.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re K.D.), 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (right to be heard at a meaningful time and manner in CHINS cases)
- Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Durham, 748 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (mootness doctrine)
- N.L. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re N.E.), 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (domestic violence can support CHINS determination)
- S.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re R.S.), 987 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (CHINS adjudications should consider circumstances at time of hearing)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)