In the Matter of S.D., Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2014 Ind. LEXIS 131
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Mother relocated her family to Indianapolis after two-year-old S.D. suffered cardiac arrest from undiagnosed cardiomyopathy and was treated at Riley Hospital (tracheostomy, gastrostomy, ventilator).
- Mother initially left the other four children with relatives while she stayed with S.D., then moved the whole family and experienced transient housing and resource strain.
- DCS removed the four older children in May so Mother could focus on S.D.; DCS filed CHINS petitions for all five children based on S.D.’s medical needs and Mother’s unstable housing/resources.
- By the fact-finding hearing Mother had secured and renovated a three‑bedroom duplex, had regained custody of the older four children, and completed classroom tracheostomy training; only the required 24‑hour hospital home‑care simulation (and an approved secondary caregiver) remained incomplete.
- Mother struggled to secure a DCS‑approved secondary caregiver (Grandmother was disapproved; a family friend was identified days before the hearing) and had not scheduled the 24‑hour simulation by the hearing. Riley would not release S.D. home until both caregivers completed that simulation.
- Trial court adjudicated S.D. a CHINS based on unmet medical‑care training; it dismissed CHINS allegations as to the siblings. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed as to S.D.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a CHINS 1 adjudication requires showing needs are unlikely to be met without court coercion | DCS: S.D. still could not return because neither caregiver completed Riley’s required 24‑hour training; therefore court intervention was necessary | Mother: She had addressed the family’s needs largely on her own and would complete the final training without coercion | Reversed: State failed to show the unmet medical training was unlikely to be completed absent coercive intervention; CHINS adjudication improper |
| Whether siblings remained CHINS at fact‑finding | DCS: concerns about housing, enrollment, resources justified CHINS for all children | Mother: By hearing she had obtained housing, renovated, and the siblings were returned; she was providing for them | Held not CHINS: trial court correctly dismissed CHINS for siblings; their return undercuts need for coercion as to S.D. |
| Whether trial court’s abbreviated findings sufficed for review | DCS: existing findings about special medical needs are adequate | Mother: findings were sparse and omitted whether coercion was necessary | The Court: findings addressed elements (danger/needs) but record lacked findings on coercion; review under general judgment standard compelled reversal |
| Mootness of appeal after S.D. return and case closure | DCS: appeal moot because child returned and case closed | Mother: CHINS adjudication has collateral consequences (parental‑rights standard, employment, licensing) | Not moot: reversal provides meaningful relief from collateral legal consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (standard for appellate review in CHINS cases)
- Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (appellate review limits: no reweighing/credibility determinations)
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (two‑tiered review for findings and judgments)
- Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (CHINS coercion element protects against unwarranted state intrusion)
- In re C.S., 863 N.E.2d 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (CHINS adjudication should consider family condition at time of hearing)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (clarifying precedents cited in CHINS context)