ILNews

COA: Judge can cite statutes and facts not in CHINS petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found that a Hendricks Superior judge didn’t step outside his authority when referencing statutes and facts not specifically cited in a Department of Child Services petition alleging two minor boys were Children in Need of Services.

In a unanimous ruling Wednesday in The Matter of Ju.L and Je.L., J.L. v. Indiana Department of Child ServicesJ.L., Child Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; J.L. v. I.D.C.S., No. 32A01-1010-JC-532, the appellate panel upheld the judgment by Hendricks Superior Judge Mark Smith involving a mother’s appeal that her two boys born in 2004 and 2006 are CHINS.

The parents were in the middle of a contested dissolution in May 2008 when the alleged facts in this case occurred, and as the divorce proceedings concluded in mid-2009 the Marion County Division of the DCS received at least 25 allegations that the father was abusing the boys. The county agency interviewed the boys on multiple occasions and investigated the reports during the next several months, but it didn’t find any evidence of the abuse alleged against the father.

 As a result of the mother’s numerous unsubstantiated allegations, the DCS in February 2010 filed a CHINS petition saying that she had failed to provide the children with a safe and appropriate living environment. The petition said she had exposed them to many physical exams and interviews due to the repeated claims against the father that were considered “unusual, bizarre complaints of sexual assault.”

Investigating the matter more during 2010, the DCS determined that the mother was emotionally abusing the boys and that her profile was that of someone with intense chronic anger that could endanger the family. The DCS recommended father have sole legal custody, that mother not be allowed to take the children to any medical appointments without him, and that they share physical custody.

The trial court placed the children with the father on an emergency request and ordered supervised visits with the mother. In June 2010, a fact-finding hearing on the case was held. It was determined that the boys were CHINS because they’d been subjected to emotional abuse.

On appeal, the mother argues that the trial court erred in the CHINS determination because it relied on state abuse and neglect statutes and facts not listed in the DCS petition. But the Court of Appeals found the DCS had cited Indiana Code 31-34-1 generally that encompasses both of those statutes and any related claims that might come up during the CHINS proceedings. The appellate panel applied its decision from In re V.C., 867 N.E. 2d 167, 178-79 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) that held any issues not raised by the pleadings may be tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. The mother had adequate notice in this case because she had implied notice that her acts and omissions could be grounds for the CHINS proceeding under the abuse statute.

Since the trial court held a fact-finding hearing, it had adequate authority to cite those issues or facts that came out of the hearing and might not have been specifically listed in the DCS petition, the appeals judges found.

“However, we do not see anywhere in Mother’s Brief where she has provided legal precedent for the argument that a trial court may only make conclusions of law based on the facts listed in a CHINS petition,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote. “In other words, the purpose of the CHINS petition is not to provide the exclusive factual foundation for the trial court’s subsequent conclusions of law.”

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT