In the Matter of: N.A. (Minor Child) A Child in Need of Services and B.L. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 7, 2016
• Docket: 49A05-1506-JC-667
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Mar 07 2016, 8:23 am

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any 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 Steven J. Halbert Gregory F. Zoeller Carmel, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke James D. Boyer Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: March 7, 2016 N.A. (Minor Child) Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1506-JC-667 A Child in Need of Services Appeal from the Marion Superior and Court B.L. (Mother) The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Danielle P. v. Gaughan, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. The Indiana Department of Child 49D09-1503-JC-968 Services Appellee-Petitioner.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1506-JC-667 | March 7, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issue [1] N.A. is the child of R.A (“Father”) and B.L. (“Mother”). In March 2015, the

Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging N.A.

was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Following a fact-finding hearing as

to Mother but before a fact-finding hearing was held as to Father, the juvenile

court adjudicated N.A. a CHINS. Mother appeals, raising the sole issue of

whether her due process rights were violated when the juvenile court

adjudicated N.A. a CHINS before conducting a fact-finding hearing as to both

parents. Concluding the juvenile court did not deprive Mother of due process,

we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In early 2014, DCS initiated an investigation into the well-being of Mother’s

other children, B.C. and G.A., after receiving a report that Father abused

Mother;1 Mother had not yet given birth to N.A. Father and Mother lived

together, but they were not married. Following the investigation, DCS filed a

petition alleging each child was a CHINS. Mother subsequently admitted the

allegations set forth in the petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated each

1 The record indicates Mother and Father had a prior substantiation in 2013 for domestic violence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1506-JC-667 | March 7, 2016 Page 2 of 5 child a CHINS. Because of the history of domestic violence, DCS instituted a

safety plan.

[3] In December 2014, Mother gave birth to N.A. In March 2015, another incident

of domestic violence occurred between Mother and Father. On March 23, DCS

filed a petition alleging N.A. was a CHINS. Specifically, DCS alleged Mother

violated the safety plan. On the same day, the juvenile court held a joint

detention and initial hearing and removed N.A. from Mother’s custody.

Mother attended the hearing, but Father did not attend.

[4] On April 24, 2015, the juvenile court scheduled Mother’s fact-finding hearing

for May 18, 2015. The juvenile court did not schedule a fact-finding hearing as

to Father because Father did not appear at any of the pre-trial hearings. On

May 18, Mother and Father attended Mother’s fact-finding hearing. Because

this was Father’s first appearance, the juvenile court conducted an initial

hearing as to Father and scheduled a pre-trial hearing for June 5, 2015. During

Mother’s portion of the hearing, DCS presented evidence that Mother had

violated the safety plan. Mother testified she called the police after getting into

an altercation with Father but denied violating the safety plan. At the

conclusion of Mother’s fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated N.A.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1506-JC-667 | March 7, 2016 Page 3 of 5 a CHINS. Mother now appeals the juvenile court’s order adjudicating N.A. a

CHINS.2

Discussion and Decision [5] Mother contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights in

adjudicating N.A. a CHINS before Father’s fact-finding hearing. “Due process

protections bar state action that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property

without a fair proceeding.” In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37, 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), trans. denied. It is well-

established “a CHINS determination establishes the status of a child alone.” In

re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2010). Therefore, “the conduct of one parent

can be enough for a child to be adjudicated a CHINS.” Id. Because the

conduct of one parent can be enough for a child to be adjudicated a CHINS,

due process generally does not require a separate analysis as to each parent

before a juvenile court adjudicates a child a CHINS. In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d at

39.

[6] Here, Mother had an opportunity to testify, present evidence on her own behalf,

and cross-examine DCS’ witnesses; Father, however, did not. In situations

2 On appeal, Mother does not argue the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s order adjudicating N.A. a CHINS.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1506-JC-667 | March 7, 2016 Page 4 of 5 such as this where the juvenile court adjudicates a child a CHINS following a

fact-finding hearing as to the first parent, but before a fact-finding hearing as to

the second parent, it is the second parent who, in some circumstances, may

potentially have a due process claim, not the first parent. We interpret

Mother’s argument as an attempt to challenge Father’s possible due process

claim on his behalf, but Mother is not the proper person to invoke our power.

See Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 533 N.E.2d 1204, 1206 (Ind. 1990) (“The

judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the

proper person to invoke the court’s power.”). Therefore, the juvenile court did

not deprive Mother of due process.

Conclusion [7] We conclude the juvenile court did not violate Mother’s due process rights.

Accordingly, we affirm.

[8] Affirmed.

Barnes, J., and Altice, J. concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1506-JC-667 | March 7, 2016 Page 5 of 5