History
  • No items yet
midpage
In the Matter of S.C., A Minor Child, A Child In Need Of Services, M. L., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
96 N.E.3d 579
Ind. Ct. App.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Mother admitted children were CHINS after fleeing a domestic-violence incident in which Mother shot another adult; DCS removed the children and filed CHINS petitions.
  • Mother was incarcerated pending trial; she initiated a paternity action naming Father as an alleged father; DNA later confirmed Father is S.C.’s biological father.
  • S.C. was placed with Father on November 23, 2016; DCS and the guardian ad litem reported no safety concerns with Father’s home after home checks and supervised visits.
  • The CHINS and paternity actions were bundled; no paternity decree or formal custody order had been entered at the time of the February 9, 2017 fact-finding hearing.
  • At the fact-finding hearing the parties submitted a written stipulation of facts; DCS conceded it would have no safety concerns and would dismiss the CHINS case if paternity and custody were awarded to Father.
  • The juvenile court adjudicated S.C. a CHINS, reasoning that without a paternity decree/custody order Father lacked legal ability to provide for the child and that changing custody would deprive Mother of reunification opportunity; the Court of Appeals reversed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the trial court erred in adjudicating S.C. a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) DCS: the absence of a paternity decree/custody order meant Father lacked legal authority to provide for S.C., justifying coercive court intervention (CHINS) Father: DCS did not prove S.C.’s physical/mental condition was endangered or that coercive intervention was necessary; Father was caring for S.C. and DCS had no safety concerns Reversed: CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous because evidence showed Father was biological parent, had custody and provided safe care, and coercive intervention was not proved

Key Cases Cited

  • Matter of N.C., 72 N.E.3d 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (reversing where noncustodial father had temporary custody, placement was appropriate, and no neglect allegations existed)
  • In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for CHINS appeals; defer to factual findings but review conclusions of law)
  • In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (elements DCS must prove for CHINS adjudication)
  • In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (coercive intervention reserved for parents who lack ability to provide for children)
  • J.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 3 N.E.3d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (CHINS purpose is to protect children, not punish parents)
  • In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS focuses on child’s condition rather than parental fault)
  • K.B. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 24 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (court should consider parents’ situation at time of hearing; CHINS may not be based on conditions that no longer exist)
  • Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (coercive intervention standard protects against unwarranted state interference)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In the Matter of S.C., A Minor Child, A Child In Need Of Services, M. L., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 27, 2017
Citation: 96 N.E.3d 579
Docket Number: 49A05-1704-JC-751
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.