In the Matter of: V.G. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and R.G. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1605-JC-1071
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2016Background
- V.G., born April 6, 2014, lived mostly with his father and paternal grandmother shortly after birth; mother (R.G.) is a minor.
- Mother experienced prolonged housing instability (multiple residences, two shelter stays, one night outdoors) and had no income or steady employment during the relevant period.
- Mother asked Father to care for V.G.; Father and paternal grandmother lacked legal guardianship and Father had not established paternity at the time of hearing.
- DCS filed a verified petition alleging V.G. was a CHINS based on Mother’s unstable housing and inability to provide basic needs; a fact-finding hearing was held March 28, 2016.
- Juvenile court adjudicated V.G. a CHINS and entered a dispositional order: V.G. remained in relative care/wardship to DCS; Mother was ordered to attend home-based case management, parent education, follow DCS recommendations, and was permitted unsupervised parenting time.
- Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for CHINS adjudication and that the dispositional order failed to comply with Indiana Code § 31-34-19-6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether evidence supports adjudication that V.G. is a CHINS | Mother: She placed V.G. with Father/paternal grandmother, so she did not deprive him of necessities | DCS: Mother lacked stable housing, income, and had not provided basic care; caregivers lacked guardianship/paternity | Court: Affirmed—sufficient evidence that V.G. was endangered and CHINS adjudication proper |
| 2. Whether coercive court intervention was necessary | Mother: Court coercion was unnecessary because family members could provide support | DCS: Mother’s inability to provide care, instability, and lack of resources made court intervention necessary | Court: Affirmed—coercive intervention was justified given Mother’s inability to meet child’s needs |
| 3. Whether dispositional order complied with IC § 31-34-19-6 (least restrictive, least disruptive) | Mother: Order was not least restrictive/least disruptive and continued supervision was unnecessary | DCS: Placement in relative care and minimal restrictions (education, case management, unsupervised visits) complied with statute | Court: Affirmed—order complied with statute; placement was least restrictive under facts |
| 4. Whether Mother’s recent improvements undermined need for continued supervision | Mother: Recent housing approval and compliance with DCS reduce need for supervision | DCS: Past instability and Mother’s status as a minor with no income justify continued oversight | Court: Affirmed—recent improvements acknowledged but did not render supervision unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Roark v. Roark, 551 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (CHINS statute allows intervention before a tragedy; focus on endangerment by parental action/inaction)
- In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (CHINS adjudication aims to protect children, not punish parents)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review of CHINS evidence does not reweigh credibility; consider only evidence supporting the juvenile court)
- In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (state must show needs are unlikely to be met without coercive intervention)
- Lake Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (coercive intervention reserved for parents who lack ability, not merely encounter difficulty, in meeting child’s needs)