In the Matter of J.B. and L.B.: J.J. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services , 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 188 ( 2016 )

FILED
Jun 08 2016, 8:39 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Nancy A. McCaslin Gregory F. Zoeller
McCaslin & McCaslin Attorney General
Elkhart, Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorney General
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of J.B. and L.B.: June 8, 2016
Court of Appeals Case No.
20A05-1510-JC-1612
J.J. (Mother),
Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Appellant-Respondent, Court
The Honorable Deborah Domine,
v.
Magistrate
The Honorable Terry C.
The Indiana Department of Shewmaker, Judge
Child Services,
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner. 20C01-1507-JC-82
20C01-1507-JC-83
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] J.J. (Mother) and G.B. (Father) shared custody of their children pursuant to a
paternity court’s custody order. When Mother, high on methamphetamine, got
into a car accident with the children, the Indiana Department of Child Services
placed the children with Father and filed a petition alleging that the children
were in need of services. After Mother and Father admitted that the children
were CHINS, the juvenile court entered an order that modified custody of the
children pursuant to the custody-modification statutes—giving Father full
custody and Mother supervised parenting time—and discharged the parties.
[2] While the juvenile court could enter a dispositional decree that removed the
children from Mother and authorized DCS to place them with Father, as soon
as the court discharged the parties, it lost jurisdiction. At this point, jurisdiction
reverted to the paternity court, where the paternity court’s joint custody order
controlled. We therefore reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Mother and Father are the parents of J.B., born July 30, 2004, and L.B., born
August 27, 2007.1 Mother and Father were never married. Although the
parties did not provide us with any records from the paternity case, it appears
1
There is a third child, D.B., born June 28, 2010, but this appeal does not involve D.B., as D.B. was
addressed separately. Accordingly, our reference to “children” includes only J.B. and L.B.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 2 of 7
that Father established paternity to the children, and Elkhart Superior Court 6
awarded joint legal and physical custody of the children to Mother and Father
under Cause No. 20D06-0802-JP-107.
[4] On July 12, 2015, Mother and the children were involved in a car accident.
Mother was under the influence of methamphetamine and “black[ed] out”
immediately before the accident, methamphetamine and needles were found in
Mother’s purse, and the children were not properly restrained. Tr. p. 8.
Mother had been struggling with methamphetamine abuse for about a year.
[5] After someone reported the car accident to DCS, DCS began a preliminary
inquiry. A detention hearing was held on July 27 in Elkhart Circuit Court,
Juvenile Division. Also that day, DCS filed a petition alleging that the children
were CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. Finding that it was “in the
best interests of the children to be removed from [Mother’s] care and home
environment,” the juvenile court placed the children with Father and set an
initial hearing on the CHINS petition. Appellant’s App. p. 31.
[6] At the August 3 initial hearing, Mother and Father each admitted that the
children were CHINS. Specifically, Mother admitted that the children were
CHINS based on the car accident and her drug use, which raised concerns for
the children’s safety. And Father admitted that the children were CHINS based
on the fact that the children were not safe in Mother’s care and he could not
“restrict the children’s visits with their mother” because they shared custody.
Id. at 38. The juvenile court found that the children were CHINS and accepted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 3 of 7
DCS’s recommendation regarding services. Id. at 39. DCS had recommended
services for Mother only. Id. at 43, 45. The juvenile court scheduled a
dispositional hearing for September 3.
[7] But before the September 3 dispositional hearing, DCS filed a “Motion for
Change of Custody,” which alleged, based on the car accident, that there “has
been a substantial change in one or more of the factors which the Court may
consider under Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8[2] for purpose[s] of modifying custody
under the order entered in Elkhart Superior Court 6.” Id. at 57. DCS asked the
juvenile court to give Father full custody of the children and to close the
CHINS case. Tr. p. 32. The juvenile court held a hearing on September 3,
following which it entered an order giving Father sole legal and physical
custody of the children and Mother supervised parenting time. Appellant’s
App. p. 9. Although the juvenile court noted that the purpose of a CHINS case
“is not to mediate a custody dispute,” it found that there “has been a substantial
change in one or more of the factors which the Court must consider in issuing
custody orders as spelled out in I.C. § 31-17-2-8.” Id. at 8-9. The juvenile court
then discharged the children and parents and terminated the CHINS case, one
month after the children were found to be CHINS. Id. at 9.
[8] Mother now appeals.
2
Section 31-17-2-8 applies to modifications of custody in dissolution proceedings. In paternity proceedings,
however, the relevant statute is Indiana Code section 31-14-13-6. Nevertheless, the dissolution and paternity
statutes contain nearly identical language.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 4 of 7
Discussion and Decision
[9] Mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to modify custody of the
children in the CHINS case. Juvenile courts have “exclusive original
jurisdiction” over CHINS cases filed under Indiana Code article 31-34, except
as provided in Indiana Code section 31-30-1-13. Ind. Code § 31-30-1-1.3
Section 31-30-1-13(a), in turn, provides that a trial court that has jurisdiction of
a child-custody proceeding in a paternity case has “concurrent original
jurisdiction” with a CHINS court for purposes of modifying that child’s
custody.4 In other words, Section 31-30-1-13 extends custodial decision-making
to paternity courts during the pendency of CHINS proceedings. Reynolds v.
Dewees, 797 N.E.2d 798, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); see also In re M.B., No.
65S04-1604-MI-180 (Ind. Apr. 12, 2016) (addressing a trial court’s jurisdiction
in an independent action for custody when a CHINS case is pending in juvenile
court).
[10] But this is not what happened here. Father did not file an independent action
for custody in the paternity court, Elkhart Superior Court 6. Rather, DCS
sought to modify Elkhart Superior Court 6’s custody order in the CHINS court.
After a child is found to be a CHINS, the juvenile court must hold a
3
Section 31-30-1-1 lists other exceptions.
4
Similarly, Indiana Code section 31-30-1-12(a) provides that a trial court that has jurisdiction of a child-
custody, parenting-time, or child-support proceeding in a marriage dissolution has “concurrent original
jurisdiction” with a CHINS court for purposes of modifying that child’s custody.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 5 of 7
dispositional hearing within thirty days to consider, among other things,
“placement of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-34-19-1(a). The juvenile court may
enter several dispositional decrees, including: “Remove the child from the
child’s home and authorize the department to place the child in another home,
shelter care facility, child caring institution, group home, or secure private
facility.” Ind. Code § 31-34-20-1(a)(3).
[11] “When the juvenile court finds that the objectives of the dispositional decree
have been met, the court shall discharge the child and the child’s parents,
guardian, or custodian.” Ind. Code § 31-34-21-11. The juvenile court’s
jurisdiction over a CHINS and over the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian
ends when the court discharges the child and the child’s parent, guardian, or
custodian. Ind. Code § 31-30-2-1(a)(1).
[12] While the juvenile court could enter a dispositional decree that removed the
children from Mother and authorized DCS to place them with Father, as soon
as the juvenile court discharged the parties, it lost jurisdiction. This meant that
the CHINS court no longer had concurrent jurisdiction, and jurisdiction
reverted to the paternity court, where the paternity court’s joint custody order
controlled. But because it appears that the juvenile court would not have
discharged the parties and terminated the CHINS case had it not thought that
Father was getting full custody, we reverse and remand this case for further
proceedings.
[13] Reversed and remanded.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 6 of 7
Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 7 of 7