In the Matter of A.G.(Minor Child), A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.G.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
This text of In the Matter of A.G.(Minor Child), A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.G.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (In the Matter of A.G.(Minor Child), A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.G.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 31 2013, 5:24 am 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:
CRAIG A. DECHERT GREGORY F. ZOELLER Howard County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Kokomo, Indiana ROBERT J. HENKE CHRISTINE REDELMAN Office of the Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF A.G. (Minor Child), ) A CHILD ALLEGED TO BE A CHILD ) IN NEED OF SERVICES ) ) J.G. (Mother), ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. 34A02-1306-JC-514 ) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ) CHILD SERVICES, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge Cause No. 34C01-1304-JC-105
October 31, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge Case Summary
J.G. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order, following a factfinding hearing,
concluding that her minor child, A.G., is a child in need of services (“CHINS”). J.G.
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s order. Concluding that
the trial court’s CHINS finding is not a final appealable order, we dismiss this appeal.
Facts and Procedural History
A.G. was born on January 28, 2013. On April 3, 2013, the Howard County
Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report alleging that A.G. was constantly
dirty and possibly underfed and that there were concerns about the condition of Mother’s
home. Following an investigation that confirmed that report and raised additional concerns
regarding marijuana use by Mother and medical concerns for A.G., DCS filed a petition
alleging A.G. to be a CHINS. An initial hearing was held on April 12, 2013, and on May 30,
2013, the trial court held a CHINS factfinding hearing. Following the hearing, the trial court
entered its “ORDER ON FACT FINDING HEARING” finding A.G. to be a CHINS.
Appellant’s App. at 3. On June 13, 2013, Mother filed her notice of appeal with this Court.
A CHINS dispositional hearing was subsequently held by the trial court on June 24, 2013.
Discussion and Decision
DCS asserts that because Mother brought this appeal before the dispositional hearing
was held, her appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. “A final
judgment disposes the subject matter of the litigation as to the parties so far as the court in
which the action is pending has the power to dispose of it.” Matter of J.L.V., Jr., 667 N.E.2d
2 186, 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). This Court has held that a CHINS determination is a mere
preliminary step to be taken prior to choosing among several different dispositional
alternatives. In re J.V., 875 N.E.2d 395, 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied (2008). A
final appealable order exists only after the dispositional hearing has been held and a
dispositional order finally determines the rights of the parties. Id; see Ind. Code § 31-34-20-1
(if a child is a CHINS, the juvenile court may enter one or more of various dispositional
decrees).
Because Mother’s notice of appeal preceded the dispositional hearing, we agree with
DCS that her appeal is untimely. We are mindful that we have, on occasion, and in limited
circumstances, addressed the merits of cases in this procedural posture so long as a
dispositional hearing was eventually conducted and a final appealable judgment was
available for our review. See J.V., 875 N.E.2d at 399; see also T.Y.T. v. Allen Cnty. Div. of
Family & Children, 714 N.E.2d 752, 756 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). However, in this case,
the trial court’s dispositional order, assuming one exists, is not contained in the record on
appeal. Therefore, we have no final appealable order to review. We further note that Mother
did not file a reply brief to address the prematurity of her appeal and does not otherwise offer
this Court any argument justifying that we render a decision on the merits under the
circumstances presented. Accordingly, we dismiss Mother’s appeal.
Dismissed.
BARNES, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of A.G.(Minor Child), A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.G.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-agminor-child-a-child-alleged-to--indctapp-2013.