ILNews

Court affirms CHINS finding of child abandoned by parents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected arguments by parents that their son should have been found to be a child in need of services under Indiana Code 31-34-1-6 because he substantially endangers his own health or the health of his family members. The appellate judges affirmed the CHINS finding under I.C. 31-34-1-1 that the parents had abandoned the child once he was placed in an emergency shelter.

C.U., born in December 2000, has a history of mental health issues, some of which were treated in Daviess County during a CHINS proceeding involving his biological mother and siblings. When that case closed, his father, C.U. Sr., and his wife, J.U., took the children. J.U. subsequently adopted the children. He was in therapy when he moved in with the family, but it ended due to scheduling conflicts.

C.U. claimed in April 2013 that J.U. abused him. He was placed in the emergency shelter care section of Lutherwood in Indianapolis. The Department of Child Services filed a petition alleging C.U. was a CHINS under I.C. 31-34-1-1 and -2. The parents denied the allegations. They also refused to pick up C.U. from the shelter or participate in any services. They claimed because of his mental health issues, he was a danger to himself and their family.

The trial court found C.U. to be a CHINS under I.C. 31-34-1-1 and ordered the family to participate in services recommended by DCS.

The judges rejected the parents’ claim that their case is similar to In re V.H., 967 N.E.2d 1066, 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), in which the COA reversed a CHINS adjudication and parental participation order. In that case, the mother tried to provide for her daughter, who had a mental health disorder, and had contacted police about altercations with her daughter.

“In sum, the Parents refused to provide shelter or treatment for the Child, leaving the Child’s care in the hands of the DCS. Although the Parents testified that the Child needs to be institutionalized, they took no steps to acquire such treatment for him and only assured the continuation of that treatment by their non-participation in the Child’s life. These facts support the trial court’s determination that the Child’ physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the Parents’ inability, refusal, or neglect in supplying the Child with the necessary shelter, medical care, or supervision and that the Child was in need of care, treatment, or rehabilitation that the Child was not receiving and was unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court,” Judge Edward Najam wrote in In the Matter of C.U., A Child in Need of Services, C.U. and J.U. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 49A05-1307-JC-354.  
 

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT