Case Information
*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEE D.T. (M OTHER ) Toby Gill Child Advocates, Inc. Victoria L. Bailey Indianapolis, Indiana Marion County
Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE I NDIANA D EPARTMENT OF C HILD S ERVICES Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke David E. Corey Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA In the Matter of: March 20, 2017 J.T. (Minor Child), Child in Court of Appeals Case No. Need of Services, 49A02-1607-JC-1622 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Child Advocates, Inc., The Honorable Marilyn A.
Appellant-Guardian Ad Litem, Moores, Judge *2 The Honorable Danielle P. v. Gaughan, Magistrate D.T. (Mother), Trial Court Cause No. 49D09-1307-JC-16390 Co-Appellee-Respondent,
The Honorable Stephen Eichholtz, Judge Trial Court Cause No. The Indiana Department of 49D08-1601-GU-2310 Child Services, Co-Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge. [1] Child Advocates, Inc., appeals two events that occurred below: (1) the transfer
of a guardianship case from probate court to juvenile court; and (2) an order in a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) case changing the child’s permanency plan from adoption to reunification.
[2] As for the guardianship case, the transfer order is not a final and appealable
order. Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). Moreover, Child Advocates requested that the transfer take place; as such, any error was invited. Appellant’s GU App. Vol. II p. 34; Appellant’s CHINS App. Vol. II p. 26. As for the CHINS case, the permanency plan order is not a final and appealable order. In re D.W. , 52 N.E.3d 839, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied . As for both cases, the CHINS case has been closed and the guardianship case
has been voluntarily dismissed by Child Advocates. We can offer no effective relief to the parties, and the case is therefore moot. E.g. , DeSalle v. Gentry , 818 *3 N.E.2d 40, 48-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). For all of these reasons, we hereby dismiss this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.