*1 557 a two- damage claim with property than a Appellate
yеar Pursuant to Ind. statute. 11(B)(8), adopt portion that of the
Rule we the Appeals of on
opinion of the Court Barrett, Shelbyville, ap- Michelle A. for Insul-Mоark, limitations issue. statute of HI.). (part N.E.2d at 465-66 594 pellant. Harrold, Shelbyville, appel- Dennis E. for therefore affirm the trial court on We and reverse applicability the of the U.C.C. lee. implied on warranties in
the trial court transactions and the statute of limi-
service
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
tatiоns.
physician-patient
privilege
the
Is
avail-
proceeding
parental
in
to terminate
able
a
DeBRULER, GIVAN,
and
DICKSON
rights?
Appeals
The Court of
held that
it
JJ.,
KRAHULIK,
concur.
agree.
is not. We
youngest
The
child of Carol Shaw and
Rouse, C.S.,
Ralph
declared a child in
was
1991,
need of services in
and the trial court
Shelby County
made C.S. a ward of the
Department
The De
of Public Welfare.
partment eventually petitioned the court to
parental rights.
appeared
terminatе
Rouse
SHAW, Appellant
(Respondent
Carol
to the termi
by counsel and consented
Below),
the termination
nation. Shaw contested
v.
and
matter
tried on the merits.
the
was
granted
petition,
The trial court
the
and the
DEPARTMENT OF
SHELBY COUNTY
Appeals
of
affirmed.
v.
WELFARE,
Court
Shaw Shel
Appellee
PUBLIC
DPW,
(Ind.App.,
by
Suprеme Court of Indiana. during sibility testimony by physicians of During trial proceedings. termination the 22, April 1993. terminate, Depart- petitiоn on the to the ment called Dr. Robert Pearce as a wit- examined in ness. Dr. Pearce had Shaw case, and he also connection with another conducting an interviewed her while evalu- ation for this case. objectеd testimony.
Shaw to Pearce's that her communications to She contended privileged under Ind.Code Pearce were (West Supp.1992), pro- 34-1-14-5 which § part: "Except permit- in vide as otherwise statute, following by persons ted the shall Physi- competent not be witnesses: . them, cians, to matter communicated as to such, by in the their patients, as course of business, given in professional or advice recognizes that Ind. such cases." Shaw 1979) 81-6-7-18(d) (West pro- Ann. Code § privilege is рhysician-patient vides that the proceedings. not in CHINS She available *2 558 by patients so as complete cоmmunication does not that this latter statute contends during Department to call Pearce allow the to further trustful аnd successful treat however, hearing, (1990), Ind., because ment. a termination Matter 563 C.P. of 1275, proceeding. N.E.2d 1278. also Green v. separate a See the termination is 244, (1971), 255, 257 Ind. 274 N.E.2d State held. ex rel.
This Court has so State Gos 267, 2783. the enactment of Ind.Codе With (1991), Ind., 577 v. Circuit Court nell Cass 31-6-7-13(d), legislature N.E.2d 957. created an the § express, exeeption physician- to limited the procеedings are in- Although termination judicial patient privilege to facilitate deter- cases, the separate from CHINS deed cases as one in need mination of the child's status correctly the Appeals noted that of Cоurt forthcoming not protection of or services termination, Ind.Code chapter on Code family. from the child's 1979), (West specifically Ann. 81-5-5-1 § made, adjudication a is Onee CHINS in the CHINS procedures used adopts the however, juvenile may the court then enter legislative deci- read this as a chapter. We decrees, dispositional of includ- а number privi- the physician-patient sion to render ing outpatient treatment for the child and proceed- in a tеrmination lege unavailable family the provision the of services for in court was thus correct ing. The trial parent. 81-6-4-15.4. Addi- Ind.Code § admitting testimony of Dr. Pearce. the may subject a tionally, parent the be to correctly re- Appеals The of also Court required cooperation petition seeking with error, of jected Shaw's other cоntentions care, treatment, any person providing or determina- summarily we affirm their and for the child. Ind.Code 31- rehabilitation § Ind.Appellate those issues. Rule tions on Among expressly recognized 6-4-17. the 11(B)(8). purposes policies this statе and of our of judgment the of the trial We affirm strengthen juvenile code is an intent "[to court. by assisting parents to fulfill family life parental obligations." Ind.Code their KRAHULIK, DeBRULER, and GIVAN 31-6-1-1(5). § JJ., concur. legislative goal, this it is thus To attain DICKSON, J., separate with dissents parеnts essential that both children and be opinion. full, encouraged provide unfettered in- to By treating physicians. to rul- formation Justice, DICKSON, dissenting. physician- ing confidential that otherwise interpretation given to At issue is the be patient subject is to disclo- communication 31-6-7-18(d) pro- Indiana Code which § subsequent hearing, termination sure at a vides: erecting majоr this is a disincentive Court physician-patient privilege Neither the leg- open contrary to communication tо the privilege nor the husband-wife is preference preservation for rather islative grounds excluding any in for evidence parent-child of rela- than termination the alleged in proceeding which the child is tionship. to be a child in need of services. interpret legislative exception I the to present proceeding The is in one which the applicable physician-patient privilege the as appellant's appellee seeks to terminate the only proceeding seeking adjudica- to a an rights pre- parental respect with to a child allegation a is in need tion of an that child viously adjudicated a child in need of ser- of services. The statutе does not extend (CHINS). proceeding A vices for termi- exception parental rights the to termination parеntal rights, although nation of an out- proceedings, and I it is erroneous to believe proceeding, growth of a CHINS is not a by expansive judicial statutory do so inter- continuing stage proceeding. of that Rath- pretation. separate proceeding. it is a er State ex rel. (1991), Ind., v. Gosnell Cass Circuit Court 957, 577 N.E.2d 958. public policy underlying physi-
The the
cian-patient privilege is to foster full and