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. | 2017Background
- 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)