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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT