ILNews

COA split over whether DCS has authority to interview sibling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge reached the opposite conclusion of her colleagues Wednesday in finding that the Department of Child Services lacks the statutory authority to conduct a forensic interview of a non-subject child residing in the same home as a child who has claimed abuse by a resident family member.

Mother A.W. appealed the Brown Circuit Court order granting the DCS’ petition to interview then 9-year-old G.W., whose 12-year-old sister M.F. had alleged then recanted that her stepfather touched her inappropriately. In investigating the claim, DCS received copies of diary entries stored under M.F.’s password on her grandmother’s computer that described sexual intercourse between the girl and her stepfather. M.F.’s biological father also claimed that G.W. told her mother about the inappropriate touching between M.F. and the stepfather.

M.F. recanted her claims, saying she was angry with her mother for not spending enough time with her, and denied making the diary entries. DCS wanted to interview G.W., but her mother refused. DCS then filed an emergency petition with the court to be able to interview the girl, based on I.C. 31-33-8-7 and 31-32-12. Those statutes make reference to interviews with the child subject to the investigation. G.W. never claimed to be abused.

The trial court granted the order, relying on the language that requires an assessment of the name and condition of the other children in the home when investigating an abuse claim.

Judges Terry Crone and L. Mark Bailey affirmed in In the Matter of G.W. (Minor Child); A.W. (Mother) and J.W. (Stepfather) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 07A01-1201-JM-6, interpreting I.C. 31-33-8-7 as applicable to a child who is not the subject of an abuse investigation. The majority pointed to the seriousness of M.F.’s allegations and that the two girls are close in age. Just because their mother vouched for G.W.’s safety doesn’t mean the DCS’ and the trial court’s concerns are unwarranted, he wrote.

Judge Patricia Riley’s dissent focused on the statutes in question. She believed the language did not apply to children who are not subject to the abuse investigation. The only route the DCS could take because A.W. refused to make G.W. available for a forensic interview is for DCS to file a certification by a physician that an emergency existed, which would allow the trial court to order the examination. The DCS did not do that.

“Although the majority invokes its ‘common sense’ in interpreting the statute, in essence, it just presented the DCS with a broad enlargement of its authority by effectively erasing the safeguards our Legislature granted to ‘other children in the home,’” she wrote. “I refuse to subscribe to the majority’s interpretation of ‘common sense.’”

 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT