CHINS: Child Advocates, Inc., Guardian Ad Litem v. DT (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 20, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1607-JC-1622
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 20 2017, 9:56 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Toby Gill D.T. (MOTHER) Child Advocates, Inc. Victoria L. Bailey Indianapolis, Indiana Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke David E. Corey Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: March 20, 2017 J.T. (Minor Child), Child in Court of Appeals Case No. Need of Services, 49A02-1607-JC-1622 and Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Child Advocates, Inc., The Honorable Marilyn A. Appellant-Guardian Ad Litem, Moores, Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 3 v. The Honorable Danielle P. Gaughan, Magistrate D.T. (Mother), Trial Court Cause No. 49D09-1307-JC-16390 Co-Appellee-Respondent, The Honorable Stephen Eichholtz, and Judge

The Indiana Department of Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1601-GU-2310 Child Services, Co-Appellee-Petitioner

Baker, Judge.

[1] Child Advocates, Inc., appeals two events that occurred below: (1) the transfer

of a guardianship case from probate court to juvenile court; and (2) an order in

a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) case changing the child’s permanency

plan from adoption to reunification.

[2] As for the guardianship case, the transfer order is not a final and appealable

order. Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). Moreover, Child Advocates requested that the

transfer take place; as such, any error was invited. Appellant’s GU App. Vol. II

p. 34; Appellant’s CHINS App. Vol. II p. 26. As for the CHINS case, the

permanency plan order is not a final and appealable order. In re D.W., 52

N.E.3d 839, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[3] As for both cases, the CHINS case has been closed and the guardianship case

has been voluntarily dismissed by Child Advocates. We can offer no effective

relief to the parties, and the case is therefore moot. E.g., DeSalle v. Gentry, 818

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 3 N.E.2d 40, 48-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). For all of these reasons, we hereby

dismiss this appeal.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 3