124 N.E.3d 1234
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- DCS filed a CHINS petition for M.S. in November 2017; factfinding hearing began December 13, 2017.
- Indiana Code § 31-34-11-1 requires factfinding be completed within 60 days, or 120 days if parties consent to one extension; failure requires dismissal without prejudice.
- The court set a completion deadline of March 15, 2018, and rescheduled the hearing to February 23, 2018.
- Mother requested records from Danville Police; after motions, the court ordered production and granted Mother’s continuance request for the February 23 hearing.
- The factfinding hearing was not completed until April 2018; disposition occurred in October 2018, when Mother moved to dismiss for statutory-timing violation; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the statutory 120-day limit is mandatory and the case must be dismissed without prejudice; if DCS refiles, it must present new evidence of current conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss for failure to complete factfinding within statutorily mandated time | The 120-day maximum is a mandatory deadline; Mother sought dismissal because hearing exceeded that period | Mother requested the continuance and purportedly waived the deadline, so dismissal is unnecessary | The 120-day deadline is mandatory; denial of dismissal was error — reversed and remanded with instruction to dismiss without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of T.T., 110 N.E.3d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holds the 120-day CHINS factfinding limit is a mandatory deadline and parties cannot extend beyond it by agreement)
- Matter of J.R., 98 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (interprets the statutory timing requirement and emphasizes dismissal as the consequence for missing the deadline)
- A.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 118 N.E.3d 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (noted by another panel in a footnote suggesting limited circumstances for extension, but this panel declines to recognize such an exception)