In the Matter of P.G. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services J.G. (Father), P.G. (Guardian), and M.G. (Guardian) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A04-1604-JC-722
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- P.G., born Oct. 1999, lived with her paternal grandparents (guardians) and her father; grandparents have serious health issues limiting their ability to supervise.
- P.G., a minor, repeatedly ran away ("well over 15 times"), was truant from school, lived with her 26‑year‑old boyfriend, and became pregnant.
- DCS filed a CHINS petition (Sept. 24, 2015); P.G. was detained and placed at a residential treatment facility (Valle Vista). Appellants (father and grandparents) did not attend the initial detention hearing and received notice belatedly.
- Fact‑finding occurred in Jan. 2016; the court adjudicated P.G. a CHINS in Feb. 2016. Disposition in Mar. 2016 continued placement at Valle Vista.
- Trial court made findings that grandparents could not supply adequate supervision or education, that P.G. was endangered by their inability/neglect, and that she needed treatment unlikely to be accepted without court intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether P.G. is a CHINS | DCS: P.G. is endangered by guardians' inability to provide supervision, education, and treatment | Appellants: They provided care/shelter and had taken some safety measures; prior therapy existed | Court affirmed CHINS adjudication — findings supported by evidence of repeated runaways, truancy, living with adult boyfriend, pregnancy, and need for residential treatment |
| Lawfulness of P.G.'s detention after the hearing | Appellants: Detention was improper because they received notice only after the detention hearing | DCS: Appellants failed to raise this issue below; detention statute allows detention with written findings | Waived on appeal for failure to preserve; court emphasizes importance of notice but declines relief |
| Trial court's refusal of DCS predisposition placement recommendations | Appellants: Court erred in rejecting DCS placement options | DCS: (noting statutory limits on who may appeal placement decisions) | Waived for failure to raise in trial court; appellate court affirms and notes statutory authority restricting appeals of DCS placement decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.P., 949 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (states CHINS statutes allow intervention before a tragedy; balancing parental rights and State interest in child welfare)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (purpose of CHINS adjudication is protective, not punitive)
- In re S.K., 57 N.E.3d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate review does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility in CHINS cases)
- In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing standards of review when trial court issues findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
- In re S.A., 27 N.E.3d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming prior discussion of findings and conclusions; trans. denied)
- Commitment of T.S. v. Logansport State Hosp., 959 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (issues not presented to trial court are generally waived on appeal)