In the Matter of: S.A. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and M.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 83
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DCS filed a CHINS petition concerning S.A., born Aug. 2011, due to alleged maternal heroin use and unstable housing; Father’s whereabouts were initially unknown and he had not provided support.
- Child was placed with maternal Grandmother after an initial hearing; Father later moved to establish paternity while stationed in Texas and sought telephonic participation.
- Mother admitted to CHINS-related allegations in September 2013; trial court adjudicated Child CHINS and ordered Mother to participate in services; Grandmother remained as placement.
- Paternity was conclusively established in November 2013; a fact-finding hearing for Father was scheduled; Father sought custody and counsel represented him.
- Before the fact-finding hearing, Father disclosed PTSD from military service; DCS and CASA recommended a psychological evaluation for Father; the court ordered Father to undergo PTSD documentation or evaluation.
- The trial court continued the CHINS adjudication with dispositional orders favoring services and Grandmother’s placement, despite Father’s efforts to engage and prepare for parenting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the CHINS adjudication supported by sufficient evidence? | DCS argued Father was unlikely to meet Child’s needs absent coercive intervention. | Father contends he had undertaken steps to become a caregiver and was capable with services. | No; CHINS adjudication reversed for insufficiency of evidence. |
| Did the court violate due process by adjudicating CHINS before Father’s fact-finding hearing? | DCS argued adjudication appropriately reflected concerns tied to both parents. | Father argued the adjudication precluded meaningful opportunity to be heard. | Yes; due process violation identified but case resolved on sufficiency grounds. |
| May PTSD be used as a basis for CHINS post hoc justification? | DCS relied on Father’s PTSD as a basis to justify intervention. | PTSD evidence was not properly raised in petition and was a post hoc justification. | PTSD cannot support CHINS finding; not properly supported by petition or evidence. |
| Should the court wait for both parents to be heard before adjudicating CHINS where possible? | DCS favors consolidated adjudication when feasible to cover all facts. | Father advocated for simultaneous consideration or meaningful consideration of his evidence if split hearings occur. | When possible, adjudicate with both parents; if not, give substantial weight to second parent’s evidence. |
| If the trial court cannot immediately determine custody, can CHINS findings and custody petitions proceed separately? | DCS implies CHINS and custody may be addressed in conjunction with protective rationale. | Father pursued a custody petition; the court should consider concurrent custody evidence. | Court should coherently address both when feasible; failure to do so undermined CHINS process. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (State intrudes on parental rights only when parents cannot care for child)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (due process considerations in CHINS matters)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1256 (Ind. App. 2011) (speculation not enough for CHINS findings)
- Matter of S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (rehearing discussion and due process considerations in CHINS)