ILNews

Appeals court reverses DCS judgment of CHINS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 16-year-old Indianapolis girl was improperly adjudicated a child in need of services, and her mother should not have been subject to Department of Child Services oversight, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The court reversed a Marion Superior Court order designating V.H. a child in need of services in In the Matter of V.H.; J.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, No.49A02-1110-JC-947. The case was remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to vacate the participation order issued for V.H.’s mother, J.H.

Judge John G. Baker wrote in a unanimous opinion that V.H., who outweighed her mother by about 30 pounds, had been the aggressor in at least two physical altercations with her mother, one of which involved DCS after police responded to the mother’s 911 call when the child became physical.

There was no evidence of abuse or neglect, and J.H. had been proactive in seeking psychological and behavioral treatment because DCS failed to do so in a timely manner after the agency became involved.

“Under these facts and circumstances, it is apparent that Mother, who is a working single parent, was addressing V.H.’s behavioral issues. This is something for which we should applaud parents rather than condemn them through coercive action,” Baker wrote in reversing the CHINS adjudication.

The mother obtained a psychological evaluation of her daughter because DCS could not provide one for three to six months, despite the mother’s repeated requests. “In light of this evidence, we cannot agree that V.H. needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that she is not receiving and is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court,” Baker wrote

The court also ruled that because of procedural errors in juvenile hearings, the participation order would have been vacated even if the judges had upheld the CHINS adjudication. The participation order bound the mother to maintain regular contact with the case manager, including home visits, participation and successful completion of home-based counseling and other requirements, including reimbursing DCS $25 a week.

Baker’s opinion also reiterated a prior appeal of a DCS case that warned the agency against using boilerplate language in CHINS cases, such as spelling out “standard services” in participation orders.

“In A.C. v. Marion County Department of Child Services, 905 N.E.2d 456, 464-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), this court vacated portions of a participation decree because it utilized boilerplate language requiring the mother to undergo services where there was no evidence in the record to support the need for those services. We cautioned that: The use of boilerplate language can make the citizenry cynical about the requirements necessary to achieve the goals of a CHINS adjudication.

“Forcing unnecessary requirements upon parents whose children have been adjudicated as CHINS could set them up for failure with the end result being not only a failure to achieve the goal of reunification, but potentially, the termination of parental rights. … In short, Mother was ordered to complete requirements and accept services that were not supported by the record because the DCS recommended only ‘standard services.’ … We discourage the juvenile courts from using such boilerplate requirements.”


 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT