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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT