Courts offer CHINS facilitations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because mediations have become commonplace in family law cases, it may come as no surprise that a number of Indiana counties have been implementing a similar strategy to determine if a child is a child in need of services, or CHINS.

In fact, a few CHINS facilitations were mentioned in the grant proposals for family court projects around the state.

But unlike mediations for divorces or other family law issues that involve two parties, their lawyers, and a mediator, CHINS facilitations can include the parents, their attorney, service providers, a Indiana Department of Child Services lawyer, a court-appointed special advocate, and the facilitator. Sometimes, relatives of the children and foster parents will participate. Add to that the supervisor for the DCS attorney and/or the CASA supervisor in some cases, and a room can fill up quickly.

However, all of these voices are necessary, say those familiar with CHINS facilitations, because it is a chance for each to have a say in the agreement, including the parents, and possibly avoid a fact-finding hearing.

For instance, in LaPorte County, CHINS facilitations have taken place since 2003, according to director of juvenile court services Krista MacLennan. She said about 100 CHINS facilitations take place there every year. The LaPorte County program started, MacLennan said, after the magistrate for the juvenile court at the time learned of a similar program in Allen County.

Other programs around the state include CHINS facilitations in Bartholomew and Jackson counties, which started in 2004 and 2007, respectively, and are part of the same family courts project. Johnson County started doing CHINS facilitations three years ago.

The hope for this and other CHINS facilitation programs is to help families reach agreements about allegations, in lieu of a fact-finding hearing, in a way that will expedite the process and help relieve the courts of some of their CHINS cases. It also gives the families some ownership in what they agree to for the future.

This could include necessary services that the parents would be required to participate in, and if the parents opposed any of the suggestions of the people in the room, they would get a chance to express their concern during the facilitation, MacLennan said.

Magistrate Nancy Gettinger agreed.

“From the court’s perspective … it’s a more efficient use of the court’s time if the parties can agree. It also empowers the parties to be a part of the process. This way, things are not happening to them, but they’re asked to engage and help decide what it is they need to be doing,” she said.

She added compliance is higher, and it’s more difficult for a parent in an agreement to later say they didn’t understand or agree to what was discussed at a facilitation.

In cases where the parents deny the allegations, if there are criminal charges pending and they don’t want to admit to anything that could affect their criminal case, or if DCS attorneys suggest to a judge that they don’t think those involved can reach an agreement at a facilitation, the parties will still need to go to court for a fact-finding hearing.

Magistrate Gettinger, formerly an attorney for DCS, said she can also appreciate the perspective of DCS attorneys in these facilitations.

“At the beginning of these cases, we don’t have crystal balls to know everything. We aren’t sure when the parents agree to something in a facilitation that they’ll follow through. … As a Department of Child Services attorney, I needed to make sure these kids were safe on behalf of the state of Indiana, so I wasn’t willing to give up too much.”

She said her perspective had slightly changed since she became a magistrate.

“As a magistrate, I think this is great. It doesn’t mean that just because they have an agreement it’ll go swimmingly, because there are things I don’t know about every case,” she said, “but it helps.”

She and MacLennan said that most facilitations end with an agreement from everyone in the room.

But on the rare occasion someone in the room doesn’t sign off, such as the CASA or a CASA’s supervisor, “that speaks volumes to me. I have to weigh that in my decision to sign off on the order,” Magistrate Gettinger said.

Tammi Hickman, director of the Johnson County CASA Program, said she appreciates that CASAs have a voice in these facilitations.

In her county, Hickman said around 95 percent of all new CHINS cases were facilitated. As director, she attends facilitations for cases where DCS tells her a CASA should be placed on the case. She said there are typically four of these facilitations that take place every Monday.

Hickman said it is also helpful that the CASA meets with families after they’ve already set their agreement. Because the parents have been involved with the agreement, they are also more cooperative.

In LaPorte County, after Magistrate Gettinger signs off on an agreement, she meets with the parties.

“They have to listen to my speech that the agreement is signed, sealed, delivered. My job is to make sure the agreement gets implemented. I tell the parties, ‘I need to make sure the department does what it needs to do, and you need to do what you need to do,’” she said.

She also tells parties that if they are not in compliance or end up in court down the road, they will have a different experience.

“If after a year they are not any further along than they are today in doing what the agreement says they will do, they are looking at a different plan because the kids can’t live with that uncertainty,” she said.

MacLennan added the facilitations also save time by cutting out one of the typical steps in CHINS cases.

“What had happened prior to this, there would be an initial hearing where the Department of Child Services would present evidence and the court would determine if it was a CHINS case. The family would then be ordered to work with the Department of Child Services on a plan, and that could take another 30 to 45 days. Now we’re doing it all in the first 30 days. We’re creating the plan at that time,” she said.

MacLennan also said that in most cases the parents have counsel at the facilitation, whether it’s someone who is appointed to represent them or someone they pay. In most cases, the parties have met with counsel prior to the hearing.

In LaPorte County, facilitations are also used for cases that involve permanency planning. While these aren’t as successful as the CHINS facilitations, “I know we’ve avoided some drawn-out termination of parental rights hearings because we encouraged families to voluntarily terminate their rights,” MacLennan said.

A similar program in Bartholomew and Jackson counties, overseen by Pat McSoley, the coordinator/mediator for the family court project for Bartholomew, Brown, Jackson, and Lawrence counties, is experiencing success with CHINS facilitations similar to that recorded in LaPorte and Johnson counties.

Since his programs started in the last few years, “I would say one of the main differences is an increase in communication between the parents, service providers, and DCS,” McSoley said. “And I think that another difference is the parents are getting into service programs much quicker in the process.”

He added facilitations are also less adversarial, “making it more of a cooperative process for reunification of the family.”

As a result, McSoley said he has received positive feedback from the families. “One of the things we try to stress is we want their participation. We always ask if there are any services that aren’t being discussed and let them have a say in the ownership of the plan put into place.”

Like the others, McSoley said these facilitations were important because they can speed up the process.

“Any county with any significant number of CHINS cases should do this,” Hickman added.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.