CHINS: EF v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 9, 2017
• Docket: 60A01-1607-JC-1677
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED May 09 2017, 9:34 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court

court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Joel C. Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Robert J. Henke David E. Corey Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: May 9, 2017 U.F., A.F. & N.F. (Minor Children) Court of Appeals Case No. Children in Need of Services 60A01-1607-JC-1677 and Appeal from the Owen Circuit Court L.F. (Mother), The Honorable Kelsey Hanlon, Appellant-Respondent, Judge

v. Trial Court Cause Nos. 60C02-1602-JC-31 60C02-1602-JC-32 The Indiana Department of Child 60C02-1602-JC-34 Services, Appellee-Petitioner.

Robb, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary and Issue [1] L.F. (“Mother”) and E.F.1 (“Father”) adopted N.F., U.F., and A.F. from

certain Native American tribes in Alaska. In 2016, the juvenile court

adjudicated N.F., U.F., and A.F. as children in need of services (“CHINS”)

and placed U.F. and A.F. in non-Native American foster care.2 Mother

appealed this ruling alleging the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian

Child Welfare Act and sought a new hearing to determine whether U.F. and

A.F. should be returned to Mother. Following Mother’s filing of her notice of

appeal, the trial court ordered the children to be returned to Mother and the

parties agree this case is now moot. However, Mother argues the case should

be decided on its merits under the public interest exception. Concluding this

case is moot and does not justify our review under the public interest exception,

we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Mother and Father adopted three boys, N.F., U.F., and A.F. through tribal

adoption in Alaska. All three of the boys are seven years old. In February of

2016, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that

A.F. had red marks across his face. Mother admitted to slapping A.F. and

1 Father is now deceased. 2 N.F. was placed with his biological mother and remains in her care pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 2 of 5 further investigation revealed Mother often used physical punishment with her

children including hitting them with spatulas, switches, and spoons. The DCS

also discovered that U.F. and A.F. slept in playpens which Mother covered

with a table or dog gates so they could not get out during the night. The DCS

removed the children and filed a petition alleging that the children were in need

of services. The DCS placed U.F. and A.F. with a local foster care in the area

and placed N.F. with his biological mother.

[3] On March 14, 2016, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the CHINS allegations

arguing the DCS and juvenile court had not complied with certain provisions of

the Indian Child Welfare Act. The juvenile court denied Mother’s motion, but

granted her subsequent motion requesting the juvenile court certify its order for

interlocutory appeal. This court declined to accept jurisdiction over the case.

On April 11, 2016, the juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing and concluded

the children were CHINS and that removal of the children from their home and

continued placement in foster care was necessary for their safety and well-being.

A dispositional hearing was held on July 19, 2016, at which time the court

adopted the DCS’ recommendations. Mother filed her notice of appeal on July

20, 2016.

[4] On August 5, 2016, Mother filed a motion to terminate placement and for

immediate return of U.F. and A.F. Following a hearing on the matter on

August 10, 2016, the juvenile court granted Mother’s motion and ordered the

immediate return of U.F. and A.F. to her care and custody. See Appendix of

Appellee, Volume II at 5.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Discussion and Decision [5] On appeal, Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s adjudication of the

children as CHINS. Rather, Mother challenges the children’s placement in

foster care and alleges the juvenile court and the DCS failed to comply with

provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. ch. 21 et seq. The

relief requested by Mother was granted by the juvenile court on August 10,

2016, when the court ordered the immediate return of the children to her care

and custody.

[6] The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a case is deemed moot and will be

dismissed when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the

court. In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). Indiana’s courts have also

long recognized a case that is otherwise moot may nevertheless be decided on

its merits when the case involves a question of “great public interest.” Id. at 37.

We have defined cases of “great public interest” as those that “raise important

policy concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.” Mosley v. State, 908

N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009).

[7] We disagree with Mother that this case involves important policy concerns or

an issue likely to recur. Our research reveals relatively few cases in the State of

Indiana involving the Indian Child Welfare Act, and even fewer of those

involve disputes concerning the DCS. This case does not fall within the “great

public interest” exception and we decline to review Mother’s case on the merits.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 4 of 5 Conclusion [8] The parties agree this case has been rendered moot and we disagree with

Mother that it should be reviewed under the “great public interest” exception.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

[9] Dismissed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 5 of 5