Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An incarcerated father seeking to modify the placement of his child failed to properly file his appeal and left the Court of Appeals of Indiana without appellate jurisdiction, the court ruled Thursday in dismissing the appeal.
According to court records, L.S. was adjudicated a child in need of services in December 2020 after an incident in which another minor child was removed from the home of K.S., L.S.’s mother.
In December 2021, J.C. was determined to be held at the Vanderburgh County Jail and was also found to be the biological father of L.S.
J.C. was subsequently convicted of and sentenced to prison on eight felony charges including bigamy, domestic battery, handgun possession and possession of narcotics. His earliest release from prison is in 2038.
L.S.’s paternal grandmother sought to become involved in the child’s CHINS proceedings, as did the child’s foster parents. The juvenile court set the matter for a placement hearing.
After the hearing, the juvenile court denied requests for L.S. to be placed with his paternal grandmother and concluded it was in the child’s best interest to remain with the foster parents.
J.C. filed a notice of appeal in November 2022. He alleged that the basis for the appellate court’s jurisdiction was that he was seeking appeal from a final judgment as defined by Appellate Rule 2(H) and 9(I).
But the appellate court ruled that J.C.’s notice of appeal incorrectly indicated that the order denying the child placement modification is a final appealable order.
The court found J.C. did not seek an interlocutory appeal and that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. It thus dismissed.
Judge Peter Foley, who wrote the opinion for the appellate court, said normally, placement orders by the juvenile court in CHINS proceedings are not final judgments. He pointed out that child placement decisions are continuing in nature and are reviewed every six months.
“On the other hand, we have held at least once that we may accept jurisdiction over a CHINS action during its pendency via an interlocutory appeal of a placement or custody decision in accordance with Appellate Rule 14, the rule governing the primary exception to our general rule limiting appellate jurisdiction to final orders,” Foley wrote, citing E.R. v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 729 N.E.2d 1052, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
But he also expressed concern that a blanket rule allowing interlocutory appeals of any and all placement and custody determinations would threaten the principles underlying the court’s jurisdictional rules and its deference to family law courts.
“Most appeals are filed after a final judgment, and with good reason,” he wrote.
Ultimately, the COA determined J.C. failed to file his appeal under Appellate Rule 14.
Further, Foley wrote that the appealed order does not meet the requirements of Trial Rule 54 insofar as it does not contain the required “magic language,” despite J.C.’s notice of appeal purporting to seek relief from a final appealable judgment.
“Accordingly, we are without appellate jurisdiction over this appeal,” Foley concluded.
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Melissa May concurred.
The case is In The Matter of L.S., a Child in Need of Services, J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 22A-JC-2822.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.