In the Matter of the Guardianships of Ja.R.J., Je.R.J., and Ju.R.J., Minor Children, H.L.R. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
40A01-1706-GU-1297
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Proposed guardian H.L.R., the children's former step-grandfather, sought guardianship of three minor siblings after their mother died and father was incarcerated for life on federal drug convictions.
- Children were removed from father’s home in 2014 after drug-related incidents and the stepmother’s death; they were adjudicated CHINS and placed with a foster family; DCS later changed permanency plan to termination/adoption.
- Proposed guardian had regular weekend visits with the two younger boys (Je.J. and Ju.J.) for about a year; the older sibling (Ja.J.) refused continued visits and opposed his presence in therapy, citing re-traumatization concerns about returning to the prior neighborhood.
- Mental-health providers and DCS testified the children suffered chronic trauma, have behavioral/attachment disorders, need continued services, and would benefit from a fresh start in a different family with both mother and father figures.
- Trial court consolidated guardianship and termination hearings, denied the proposed guardian’s petitions for guardianship of Je.J. and Ju.J., and later terminated the father’s parental rights; proposed guardian appealed the denial as to the two boys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of proposed guardian’s petitions for appointment of guardianship over Je.J. and Ju.J. was contrary to law | H.L.R.: He has longstanding bonds with the children, stable home, employment, no criminal history, and guardianship would preserve family bonds and allow contact with grandmother and father | DCS: Children need permanency with a fresh start in a different family (adoption) including both maternal and paternal role models; Ja.J. opposes placement with H.L.R.; therapeutic concerns about returning to prior neighborhood | Court: Denial was not contrary to law — trial court did not abuse discretion and reasonably found termination/adoption in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of N.R., 26 N.E.3d 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard: guardianship matters committed to trial court discretion)
- In re B.J.N., 19 N.E.3d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (general-judgment standard when trial court issues no specific findings)
- In re J.C., 735 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (party appealing a negative judgment must show evidence points unerringly to opposite conclusion)
- Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs. v. J.D., 77 N.E.3d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (reversal of a negative judgment only where decision is contrary to law)
- United States v. Maggard, 865 F.3d 960 (7th Cir. 2017) (appellate disposition of father’s federal convictions mentioned in background)