Indiana Department of Child Services v. J.D., R.B.
77 N.E.3d 801
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Infant M.B. born April 19, 2016; lived with Mother (R.B.) and Mother’s boyfriend L.M.; Father (J.D.-O.) established paternity and had some unsupervised visitation before injuries were discovered.
- On June 24–25, 2016, medical imaging revealed multiple fractures (multiple posterior rib fractures, tibia fracture, clavicle fracture, and corner fractures) in different healing stages; physicians concluded injuries were non-accidental and indicative of abuse.
- DCS removed the child from Mother’s care, filed a CHINS petition, and a fact‑finding hearing occurred on August 2 and 16, 2016.
- Three physicians (radiologist, ER physician, child‑abuse pediatrician) testified that the fracture pattern was highly specific for non‑accidental trauma and unlikely to be explained by a bone disorder or accidental mechanism.
- The trial court orally denied the CHINS petition, expressing distrust of physicians’ opinions that injuries were "non‑accidental," concluding the most consistent explanation was negligent, not intentional, conduct and returning the child to Mother; DCS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS presented competent, probative evidence to trigger the rebuttable presumption under I.C. § 31‑34‑12‑4 | DCS: medical evidence of injuries, custody, and expert opinions that injuries were not accidental satisfied the statute and shifted burden to parents to rebut | Mother: argued injuries may have occurred during Father’s unsupervised visit and that DCS did not show injuries occurred in her care | Court: Reversed trial court — evidence was competent and probative and triggered the presumption; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the trial court properly discounted/ rejected physicians’ testimony that injuries were non‑accidental | DCS: physicians are qualified to opine on causation and their unanimous opinions are admissible and probative | Mother: challenged sufficiency/credibility; emphasized gaps and possible alternative explanations | Court: Trial court erred in treating causation as a legal question and in treating expert opinions as inherently improper; expert testimony is permissible and probative; court’s rejection was legal error |
| Whether the trial court applied appropriate legal standard and burden of proof in CHINS negative‑judgment appeal | DCS: trial court misapplied law by imposing too high an evidentiary burden and by characterizing factual determinations as legal ones | Mother: relied on trial court’s credibility determinations | Court: Trial court applied wrong legal standard (treated factual issue as legal, demanded more than "competent evidence of probative value"); reversal was required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Des. B., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for setting aside findings in CHINS proceedings)
- Serenity Springs v. LaPorte Cnty. Convention & Visitors Bureau, 986 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishing negative and adverse judgments for appellate standard)
- Kotsopoulos v. Peters Broadcast Eng’g, Inc., 962 N.E.2d 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (when a trial court decision is contrary to law on appeal)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS burden and that analysis establishes child’s status without separate per‑parent findings)
- Vaughn v. Daniel Co. (West Virginia), Inc., 841 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. 2006) (Rule 704 permits expert opinions on ultimate issues but not legal conclusions)
- Childers v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind. 1999) (reliance on medical testimony diagnosing injuries as non‑accidental in criminal context)
- Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners, 51 N.E.3d 1195 (Ind. 2016) (a judgment is clearly erroneous if the trial court applies the wrong legal standard)