M.C. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re A.C.)
| Decision Date | 21 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-JC-49 |
| Citation | 198 N.E.3d 1 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF A.C. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, M.C. (Mother) and J.C. (Father), Appellants-Respondents, v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellants: Joshua D. Hershberger, Hershberger Law Office, Hanover, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General, Robert J. Henke, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] M.C. (Mother) and J.C. (Father) (collectively the Parents) appeal the trial court's dispositional order (the Dispositional Order) following their child A.C.’s (Child) admission that Child is a child in need of services (CHINS) pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6 (CHINS-6) because Child was substantially endangering Child's own health. The Parents argue that the Dispositional Order and the trial court's prior order on the combined initial and detention hearing (the Initial/Detention Order) are clearly erroneous. They also argue that both orders violate their constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of Child, the free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.
[2] We conclude that the Parents’ appeal of the Initial/Detention Order is moot and decline to address it. As for the Dispositional Order, we conclude that it is not clearly erroneous and that it does not violate the Parents’ constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm.
[3] The evidence in support of the Dispositional Order shows that on May 11, 2021, DCS received a report alleging that Mother was verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child's transgender identity, and as a result, Child had thoughts of self-harm. Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at 13-14. On May 21, 2021, DCS received a second report alleging that the Parents were verbally and emotionally abusing Child because they do not accept Child's transgender identity, the abuse was getting worse, and the Parents were being mean to Child due to Child's transgender identity. A DCS family case manager (FCM) investigated these reports, met with the Parents, Child, and Child's siblings, and spoke by phone to a representative from Child's residential school.
[4] The FCM prepared a preliminary inquiry report (PIR), which indicated the following: Mother and Child both stated that Child had been suffering from an eating disorder for the past year but had yet to be evaluated by a medical professional; the Parents had withdrawn Child from school, and DCS was unaware of the family's intent to enroll Child in a new school for the upcoming school year; Child had been in therapy, but the Parents had discontinued it; Child did not feel mentally and/or emotionally safe in the home; Mother said things such as "[Child's preferred name] is the bitch that killed my son"; and Child "would be more likely to have thoughts of self-harm and suicide if [Child] were to return to the family home due to mental and emotional abuse." Id. at 14-15. The PIR also indicated that Mother stated that the family was planning to work with a doctor at a clinic for eating disorders, but Mother refused to sign any consents so that DCS could verify any medical concerns or past therapy services. Id. at 14.
[5] On May 28, 2021, DCS filed a proposed CHINS petition in the trial court, alleging that Child was a CHINS on two bases: Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents’ neglect pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 (CHINS-1) and/or Child's physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the Parents’ acts or omissions pursuant to Section 31-34-1-2 (CHINS-2). Id. at 23.
[6] On June 2, 2021, the trial court held a combined initial and detention hearing, at which it found that there was probable cause to believe that Child was a CHINS and that Child's detainment was necessary to safeguard Child's health. At the close of the hearing, the trial court cautioned the Parents to avoid discussing Child's transgender identity during visitation. Following the hearing, the court issued the Initial/Detention Order finding that it was in Child's best interest to be removed from the home due to the Parents’ "inability, refusal or neglect to provide shelter, care, and/or supervision at the present time." Id. at 29. The Initial/Detention Order also ordered that Child keep the current appointments to address Child's eating disorder and for a psychological evaluation and that the Parents "have unsupervised visitation so long as certain topics are not addressed." Id.
[7] On October 26, 2021, DCS filed a motion for leave to amend the CHINS petition to add an allegation that Child was substantially endangering Child's own health and that Child was a CHINS pursuant to the CHINS-6 statute. The motion indicates that the amendment was appropriate because Child's eating disorder was worsening, Child had lost "a significant amount of weight," Child was throwing away and hiding food and neglecting to eat full meals, and Child did not believe that Child had an eating disorder, had lost weight, or needed treatment. Id. at 40. The Parents did not object to the amendment. The trial court granted the motion.
[8] On November 15, 2021, the trial court held a hearing, at which the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement that DCS would dismiss the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, unsubstantiate and expunge the record of any reports related to the Parents, and proceed under the CHINS-6 statute. Child then admitted to being a CHINS-6, and the Parents verified that they had no objection to Child's admission. Tr. at 58. The court found a factual basis for the admission, accepted the admission, and adjudicated Child a CHINS. Id. at 59.
[9] Following the hearing, the court issued an order on the amended CHINS petition, finding that Child was a CHINS-6 because Child admitted that Child had an eating disorder that jeopardized Child's health and the eating disorder was "fueled partly because of [Child's] self-isolation from [the Parents] which is a behavior which is likely to reoccur" if Child is placed back in the Parents’ home. Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at 67. The court also found that remaining in the Parents’ care would be contrary to Child's welfare based on the allegations that Child admitted to and ordered that Child should continue to be removed from the Parents’ home. Id. at 68.
[10] On December 8, 2021, a dispositional hearing was held. At the close of the hearing, the court informed the parties that it would leave in place its earlier order prohibiting the Parents from discussing Child's transgender identity during visitation but confirmed that it could be discussed at family therapy and that the court would reconsider the order when it could be safely discussed outside of therapy. On December 9, the trial court entered its Dispositional Order, in which it found that Child needed "services to treat anorexia as well as individual and family therapy to ensure emotional, mental, and psychological safety and well-being[,]" that the Parents’ participation was necessary to "ensure that the child receives adequate treatment for anorexia and that they support and protect the child's emotional, mental, and psychological safety and well-being[,]" and that "child shall remain in the current home or placement, with supervision by DCS." Appealed Order at 3. The court also ordered the Parents to participate in family therapy. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Section 1 – The Parents’ appeal of the Initial/Detention Order is moot.
[11] The Parents first challenge the Initial/Detention Order, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that there was probable cause to believe that Child was a CHINS and that removal was necessary to protect Child's health.1 However, DCS asserts, and we agree, that the trial court's subsequent adjudication that Child is a CHINS-6 based on Child's admission, an admission the Parents did not object to, renders their appeal of the Initial/Detention Order moot.
[12] An issue is moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court. In re F.S. , 53 N.E.3d 582, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Here, no relief is available to the Parents due to any alleged error in the court's initial CHINS probable cause determination because the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations have been dismissed. Notably, the Parents are not challenging the CHINS-6 adjudication. In addition, no relief is available to the Parents due to any alleged error in the court's probable cause determination on Child's detention because Child's detention is no longer based on the Initial/Detention Order but on the Dispositional Order. Effective relief regarding Child's removal from the home, if warranted, may be granted based on the Parents’ appeal of the Dispositional Order. Accordingly, the Parents’ challenge to the Initial/Detention Order is moot.
[13] However, a moot case may be decided on its merits when the case involves questions of great public interest or when leaving the judgment undisturbed might lead to negative collateral consequences. Id. "Cases falling within the public interest exception [to the mootness doctrine] typically contain issues likely to recur." Id. We observe that Indiana courts have repeatedly chosen to address CHINS adjudications even when the CHINS case was closed and no effective relief could be granted because a CHINS adjudication can have serious consequences for families. See, e.g. , In re S.D. , 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290 (Ind. 2014) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial