In re N.E.

• Citation: 919 N.E.2d 102
• Decision Date: 06 January 2010
• Docket Number: No. 49S02-0906-JV-270.,49S02-0906-JV-270.
• Parties: In the Matter of N.E., A Child in Need of Services, N.L. (Father), Appellant (Respondent below), v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee (Petitioner below).
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

919 N.E.2d 102

In the Matter of N.E., A Child in Need of Services,

N.L. (Father), Appellant (Respondent below), v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee (Petitioner below).

No. 49S02-0906-JV-270.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

January 6, 2010.

Steven J. Halbert, Carmel, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Robert J. Henke, Indianapolis, IN, Deborah S. Burke, Marion, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0806-JV-522

SULLIVAN, Justice.

The trial court adjudicated a child to be a "Child in Need of Services" ("CHINS") without specifically alleging that the child was a CHINS with respect to the child's father. The father contends that the CHINS adjudication does not apply to him. The question in a CHINS adjudication is not parental fault, but whether the child needs services. Because a CHINS determination regards the status of the child, the juvenile court is not required to determine whether a child is a CHINS as to each parent, only whether the statutory elements have been established.

Background

N.E. was born on January 24, 2004, the daughter of a mother ("Mother") of three other children, each of the four having a separate father. In December, 2007, the Department of Child Services ("State") filed a petition in the Juvenile Division of the Marion Superior Court alleging that all four of Mother's children were CHINS. The State typically files such a petition when it believes a child has been the victim of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

The court filing recited that Mother was unable to protect her children from domestic violence. Because the State believed that none of the fathers had established paternity (and had not come forward to demonstrate the ability to parent their children appropriately), it removed the children from Mother's home. N.E. was not at Mother's home when the State removed the children. The State located N.E. at the home of her paternal grandmother ("Grandmother") and placed her into foster care with her siblings.

The juvenile court subsequently held a hearing at which the State conceded that N.E. spent a great deal of time at the home of Grandmother, where N.L. ("Father") also lived. The court ordered Mother and Father to undergo DNA testing to determine the paternity of N.E. The court established Father's paternity and placed N.E. in the custody of Father and Grandmother. About a week later, however, the State filed a motion to remove N.E. from Father and Grandmother, setting forth several reasons: (1) Father had a prior conviction for domestic battery; (2) N.E.'s paternal grandfather lived in the house; (3) N.E.'s paternal grandfather was addicted to cocaine; and (4) the paternal grandfather had an outstanding warrant for his arrest due to a probation violation. On February 1, 2008, the court returned N.E. to foster care with her siblings.

On February 12, 2008, Mother admitted that her children were CHINS; Father did not. He requested a fact finding hearing. During the fact finding hearing the parties presented conflicting evidence as to where N.E. spent most of her time. Father testified that N.E. lived three years and eight months out of her first four years with Father and Grandmother. Grandmother testified that she and Father took care of N.E. 95% of the time. Mother testified that N.E. lived with her most of the time.

The Guardian ad Litem stated that:

There are varying [accounts] as to how much time [N.E.] has lived with her father in the home of the [paternal¹] grandmother; however, there is no doubt that it was extensive and went back to an early age for [N.E.]. There is also no doubt that [N.E.] was appropriately cared for while in the home, whether there a majority of the time or for only three to four days a week.

(Appellant's App. 154.)

At the close of evidence, the court found that N.E. was a CHINS; N.E. remained in foster care. On May 30, 2008, the court held a dispositional hearing and found the children to be wards of the State. The trial court made no specific findings as to Father or its reasons for not placing N.E. with Father.

Father appealed. A divided Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the State had not alleged, and the juvenile court had not determined, N.E. to be a CHINS with respect to Father. In re N.E., 903 N.E.2d 80, 89 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). Judge Vaidik dissented. She was of the view that "a CHINS determination regards the status of the child," and that once properly determined, it was applicable to both parents. Id. at 89-90. However, both the majority of the Court of Appeals and Judge Vaidik concluded that the juvenile court's dispositional decree was deficient in not articulating reasons for not placing N.E. with Father.

The State sought, and we granted, transfer. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).²

Discussion

I

Because a CHINS proceeding is a civil action, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code. Ind.Code § 31-34-12-3. Indiana Code sections 31-34-1-1 through 11 specify the elements of the CHINS definition that the State must prove:

(1) the child is under the age of 18;

(2) one or more particular set or sets of circumstances set forth in the statute exists; and

(3) the care, treatment, or rehabilitation needed to address those circumstances is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.

For example, to establish that a child is a CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1, the State must prove the following set of circumstances: "the child's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision...." Similarly, under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2, the State must prove that "the child's physical or mental health is seriously endangered due to injury by the act or omission of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian...."

A CHINS adjudication focuses on the condition of the child. As the examples in the preceding paragraph illustrate, the acts or omissions of one parent can cause a condition that creates the need for court intervention. A CHINS adjudication can also come about through no wrongdoing on the part of either parent, e.g., where a child substantially endangers the child's own health or the health of another individual, I.C. § 31-34-1-6; or when a child is adjudicated a CHINS because the parents lack the financial ability to meet the child's extraordinary medical needs. See Lake County Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Charlton, 631 N.E.2d 526 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (declaring a 14-year-old boy born with respiratory and heart defects a CHINS because his medical insurance lapsed when claims exceeded coverage limits).

While we acknowledge a certain implication of parental fault in many CHINS adjudications, the truth of the matter is that a CHINS adjudication is simply that—a determination that a child is in need of services. Standing alone, a CHINS adjudication does not establish culpability on the part of a particular parent. Only when the State moves to terminate a particular parent's rights does an allegation of fault attach. We have previously made it clear that CHINS proceedings are "distinct from" involuntary termination proceedings. State ex rel. Gosnell v. Cass Circuit Court, 577 N.E.2d 957, 958 (Ind.1991). The termination of the parent-child relationship is not merely a continuing stage of the CHINS proceeding. Id. In fact, a CHINS intervention in no way challenges the general competency of a parent to continue a relationship with the child. Id.

In this case, the Court of Appeals majority opinion said that, "[n]ormally, a juvenile court would determine that a child is either a CHINS or is not a CHINS when presented with a CHINS petition." In re N.E., 903 N.E.2d at 87. As such, the Court of Appeals said that the CHINS statutory scheme does not require the juvenile court to determine whether a child is a CHINS as to each parent. But the Court of Appeals went on to hold that "certain principles and considerations may make such a split analysis appropriate in some instances." Id. (citing In re C.S., 863 N.E.2d 413, 418 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (determining that where the child had been found a CHINS with respect to his mother, the child was not a CHINS with respect to his father because there was neither an allegation nor evidence that the father was responsible for the circumstance which led to the CHINS determination), trans. denied).

We disagree with our colleagues and hold that a CHINS determination establishes the status of a child alone. Because a CHINS determination regards the status of the child, a separate analysis as to each parent is not required in the CHINS determination stage. As Judge Vaidik points out in her dissent, the conduct of one parent can be enough for a child to be adjudicated a CHINS. Id. at 89-90. Indeed, to adjudicate culpability on the part of each individual parent in a CHINS proceeding would be at variance with the purpose of the CHINS inquiry: determining whether a child's circumstances necessitate services that are unlikely to be provided without the coercive intervention of the court. See I.C. §§ 31-34-1-1 & -2. Said differently, the purpose of a CHINS adjudication is to protect children, not punish parents. In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 805 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. The resolution of a juvenile proceeding focuses on the best interests of the child, rather than guilt or innocence as in a criminal proceeding. Baker v. Marion County Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035, 1039 (Ind.2004).

In this case, the domestic violence in Mother's home served as the basis of the CHINS petition. Specifically, the State alleged that Mother failed to protect N.E. and her siblings from ongoing domestic violence between...