ILNews

Appeals court affirms out-of-state placement of child with father

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mother whose son was placed with his father in California after the Department of Child Services found her children to be children in need of services failed to convince a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals that the placement was erroneous or that the DCS didn’t make a reasonable effort to preserve the family.

“We believe that the evidence in this case supported the continued out-of-state placement with M.S.’s natural father, which the trial court found to be in the child’s best interest,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote in In the Matter of M.S. (A Child Alleged in Need of Services), and K.S., (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 67A04-1305-JC-212. “Therefore, the trial court’s decision to place M.S. with Father and eventually dismiss the CHINS proceedings was not error."

Mother K.S. admitted during a CHINS hearing to substance abuse problems and that she had no permanent residence, vehicle or phone. DCS has found her missing on a visit to her home where the children had been left alone, according to the record.

As father’s service in the military unwound, he eventually took M.S. with him to live in San Diego, and DCS requested to dismiss the CHINS proceeding. On appeal, mother argued DCS neglected its duty under I.C. 31-34-21-5.5 to make reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve a family.

“The health and safety of M.S. was served by his placement with Father,” Robb wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Michael Barnes. “Moreover, the placement of M.S. with Father was a familial reunification of sorts, albeit not of the kind Mother would have preferred. In light of the circumstances, we believe DCS’s reunification efforts were reasonable.”

Judge Elaine Brown concurred in a separate opinion, but said the father’s home should have been inspected before the boy was placed with his father and that DCS was too quick to terminate the CHINS proceeding, which took place one week after father’s home had been inspected.

“Under such circumstances, despite the motion by DCS to dismiss the CHINS petition, I believe that M.S. would have been better served had the court ... ordered that DCS continue with services for a period of time to monitor Father’s parenting and compliance with the terms of the decree,” Brown wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT