J.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2014 Ind. LEXIS 198
| Ind. | 2014Background
- DCS filed a CHINS petition alleging G.P. was a CHINS due to JA's drug history; JA waived counsel at the Oct 2010 initial CHINS hearing and admitted the petition.
- G.P. was placed with JA's parents with JA's consent as part of reunification efforts under the CHINS disposition.
- JA was found indigent at a Feb 2011 review, but the court did not appoint counsel; hearings proceeded with JA unrepresented.
- JA again appeared at a May 2011 review without counsel; the court did not inquire about counsel and ultimately moved toward a permanency plan of adoption.
- DCS sought termination of JA’s parental rights; JA eventually requested counsel (Jan 29, 2012) and was appointed a public defender, but the TPR process continued with JA represented only from that point onward.
- After a three-day trial, the court terminated JA’s parental rights on July 10, 2012 and G.P. was adopted by JA’s paternal grandparents; the Indiana Supreme Court vacated the TPR judgment due to the CHINS court’s denial of JA’s statutory right to counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CHINS court violate JA's right to counsel by failing to appoint after indigent finding? | JA | DCS | Yes; denial violated JA's due process. |
| Is the statutory right to counsel in CHINS independent of the due process right? | JA | DCS | Statutory right exists independently and must be honored. |
| Does denial of counsel at CHINS flow into TPR judgment and require relief beyond CHINS? | JA | DCS | Yes; CHINS error contaminated TPR, requiring vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.G., Z.G. v. Marion Ct. Dep't of Child Servs., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (due process in CHINS and TPR contexts; Mathews factors applied)
- In re E.P., J.P. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. 1995) (indigent counsel and due process in dependency contexts)
- In re M.M., M.M. v. Elkhart Office of Family & Children, 733 N.E.2d 6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (presumption against court-appointed counsel in CHINS; abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re J.Q., J.Q. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (procedural irregularities; CHINS due process considerations)
- Hawkins v. State, 982 N.E.2d 997 (Ind. 2013) (bright-line approach to denial of statutorily provided rights)
- In re Adoption of C.B.M. & C.R.M., C.A.B. v. J.D.M. & K.L.M., 992 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. 2013) (procedural remedies related to CHINS/TPR-adoption interplay)
- In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 962 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2012) (emphasizes caution in CHINS adjudication to protect later proceedings)
- Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Servs. of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (Sixth Amendment?; due process standards for appointed counsel in civil proceedings)