ILNews

Father’s lack of parenting experience does not support CHINS finding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication of a toddler as a child in need of services after finding the Department of Child Services did not establish that the child’s father is unlikely to meet the child’s needs absent court intervention based on his lack of parenting experience and previous diagnosis of having post-traumatic stress disorder.

Father M.H. was on active duty in the military most of S.A.’s life and had only seen the child twice before CHINS proceedings were initiated. His paternity was not established until these proceedings began. M.H. never paid child support or provided anything for S.A.’s care while on active duty.

S.A. was removed from his mother’s care due to her drug use and adjudicated as a CHINS. S.A. lived with his maternal grandmother and stepfather at the time of the adjudication and remained in their care.

After his paternity was established, M.H. began spending time with his son and wanted to receive custody of the boy. He visited the child at the grandmother’s house, and while he was a little slow changing diapers and clothes on the child, he interacted well with him.

At a fact-finding hearing regarding S.A.’s CHINS status, the trial court criticized M.H. for not establishing paternity sooner and also referenced M.H.’s previous revelation to DCS that he had been diagnosed and treated for PTSD while on active duty. DCS and the court-appointed special advocate wanted the CHINS adjudication to continue, citing concerns about the boy’s unfamiliarity with his father and M.H.’s lack of prior parenting experience.

The trial judge continued with the adjudication, ordering M.H. to participate in services and submit documentation for his PTSD treatment or undergo a psychological evaluation.

In In the Matter of: S.A. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and M.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 49A02-1402-JC-74, the judges sua sponte addressed the CHINS proceeding and found father’s due process rights had been violated because by adjudicating the child as a CHINS prior to father’s fact-finding hearing, the father was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

But they did not rely on that finding to reverse the adjudication. Instead, the judges cited insufficient evidence.

“DCS does not satisfy its burden of proof by simply highlighting Father’s shortcomings as a parent; rather, DCS must establish that Father is unlikely to meet the Child’s needs absent coercive court intervention. Neither the trial court’s findings nor the other evidence in the record supports such a conclusion. If it were sufficient for the purposes of CHINS adjudications that a parent has no prior parenting experience or training, then all new parents would necessarily be subject to DCS intervention,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote.

Father had resolved the allegations in the CHINS petition by the time of the fact-finding hearing. Also, his PTSD diagnosis was relied on by DCS as a post hoc justification, as it was not raised in the petition as a basis for DCS involvement.

“We find Father’s voluntary admission of his PTSD history to DCS and the CASA to be indicative of the fact that court intervention would not be necessary to compel Father into treatment,” she wrote.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT