In the Matter of: K.B., J.K.E., J.E., and K.E., Children in Need of Services, and A.E. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 28 2019, 9:36 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David K. Payne Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: K.B., J.K.E., May 28, 2019
J.E., and K.E., Children in Court of Appeals Case No.
Need of Services, 18A-JC-2603
and Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit
Court
A.E. (Mother), The Honorable Thomas Alevizos,
Appellant-Respondent, Judge
The Honorable W. Jonathan
v. Forker, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
The Indiana Department of 46C01-1806-JC-72
Child Services, 46C01-1806-JC-73
46C01-1806-JC-74
Appellee-Plaintiff. 46C01-1806-JC-75
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] A.E. (“Mother”) appeals the dispositional order concluding that her four
children are children in need of services (“CHINS”). We remand.
Analysis
[2] Mother has four children, ten-year-old K.B., eight-year-old Ja.E., three-year-old
Jo.E, and one-year-old K.E. (collectively, the “Children”). B.E. (“Father”) is
the father of Ja.E., Jo.E., and K.E. 1 K.B.’s father did not appear and was not
involved in the proceedings; his whereabouts are unknown, and he “does not
currently have legal custody” of K.B. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 11.
[3] The Children were removed by the Department of Child Services (“DCS”)
while they were staying with their maternal grandmother after allegations that:
[the Children’s] physical or mental condition is seriously
impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability,
refusal, or neglect of the [the Children’s] parent, guardian, or
custodian to supply [the Children] with necessary food, clothing,
shelter, medical care, education, or supervision; and [the
Children] need[] care, treatment, or rehabilitation that [the
Children are] not receiving; and is unlikely to be provided or
accepted without the coercive intervention of the Court.
Id. at 10, 13, 14. 2 In June 2018, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children
are CHINS, and a fact finding hearing was held on September 5, 2018. The
1
Father does not participate in this appeal.
2
The allegations are the same for each child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 2 of 8
trial court’s order on the fact finding 3 hearing merely states, “[t]hrough fact
finding, [t]he Court now finds that the child, [] is a Child in Need of Services as
defined by 31-34-1-1.” Id. at 19. After the trial court found the Children were
CHINS, a dispositional hearing was held on September 26, 2018, and a
separate dispositional order was issued.
[4] Mother raises several issues with regard to the finding that the Children were
CHINS. We, however, find it necessary to remand to the trial court based on
the trial court’s lack of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. 4 The
trial court’s dispositional order 5 merely states:
The CHINS petition comes on for a Dispositional Hearing.
A factual basis was established.
The child having been found to be a Child in Need of
Services the Court, after reviewing the Predispositional
Report(s) and hearing statements and evidence presented
to the Court regarding the disposition of this cause, finds:
3
The trial court entered a specific order with respect to K.B., and a separate order with respect to Ja.E.,
Jo.E., and K.E., collectively. We cite from K.B.’s order; however, the orders are mostly similar in all
respects.
4
We note that the trial court did orally state the basis for its findings that the Children were CHINS;
however, the statute requires “written” findings and conclusions. Ind. Code § 31-34-19-10(a).
5
The trial court entered a specific order with respect to K.B., and a separate order with respect to Ja.E.,
Jo.E., and K.E., collectively. We cite from K.B.’s order; however, the orders are mostly similar in all
respects.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 3 of 8
The needs of the child for care, treatment, or rehabilitation
are: A safe, stable home environment.
Participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the
plan for the child is necessary to: Provide a safe, stable
home environment.
Based on the information presented in the Predispositional
Report(s) and provided at the hearing, the Court makes the
following dispositional orders:
The child shall remain in her current home or placement,
with supervision by DCS.
[DCS] is awarded wardship of the children, with
responsibility for supervision, care and placement. The
rights and obligation of the person granted wardship in this
case as defined by I.C. 31-9-134.5 are hereby modified to
conform to the terms of this Dispositional Decree and the
Parent Participation Plan ordered herein. DCS is
authorized to consent to the children’s medical care.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 21-22. The trial court also ordered Mother and
Father to take part in certain services.
[5] Indiana Code Section 31-34-19-10 states,
(a) The juvenile court shall accompany the court’s dispositional
decree with written findings and conclusions upon the record
concerning the following:
(1) The needs of the child for care, treatment,
rehabilitation, or placement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 4 of 8
(2) The need for participation by the parent, guardian, or
custodian in the plan of care for the child.
(3) Efforts made, if the child is a child in need of services,
to:
(A) prevent the child’s removal from; or
(B) reunite the child with;
the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian in accordance
with federal law.
(4) Family services that were offered and provided to:
(A) a child in need of services; or
(B) the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian;
in accordance with federal law.
(5) The court’s reasons for the disposition.
(6) Whether the child is a dual status child under IC 31-41.
(b) The juvenile court may incorporate a finding or conclusion
from a predispositional report as a written finding or conclusion
upon the record in the court's dispositional decree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 5 of 8
[6] Several required findings and conclusions that should have been included in the
trial court’s order, pursuant to the statute, were not included. In CHINS cases,
written findings and conclusions are crucial, because
Indiana Code § 31-34-19-10(5) requires that the trial court give
reasons for its disposition in a CHINS proceeding. Specifically,
we are concerned that procedural irregularities, like an absence of
clear findings of fact, in a CHINS proceeding may be of such
import that they deprive a parent of procedural due process with
respect to a potential subsequent termination of parental rights. . .
. Our legislature’s enactment of an interlocking statutory scheme
governing CHINS and involuntary termination of parental rights
compels this court to make sure that each procedure is conducted
in accordance with the law.
In re J.Q., 836 N.E.2d 961, 966-67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh’g denied (citations
omitted).
[7] While the failure to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on a
dispositional order is not always reversible error, this does not appear to be one
of those cases. In In re T.S., 881 N.E.2d 1110, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), a
panel of this court found that, although the court’s written findings in a CHINS
dispositional order “consist[ed] predominantly of boilerplate language that
would not be helpful to a reviewing court and, therefore, generally would not be
sufficient to permit appellate review,” there were “few, if any, factual questions
for the court to resolve.” Specifically, this court found that, because the probate
court “had committed Mother indefinitely to inpatient mental health
treatment,” and the mother “presumably could not take [the child] . . . with her,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 6 of 8
Mother was unavailable to care for him, and no services the State might offer
would decrease the need for someone besides Mother to care for [the Child].”
T.S., 881 N.E.2d at 1113; see also McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family and
Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding that the
dispositional order “as a whole” met the statutory requirement because the trial
court “expressly incorporated OFC’s Juvenile Predispositional Report and Six-
Month Periodic Review Report and adopted OFC’s recommendations
contained in that report,” into the dispositional order, and that “OFC’s report
contains fifteen pages of family history, background, and placement options for
the children”).
[8] Here, the trial court did not incorporate prior records or the predispositional
report in its dispositional order. Further, the dispositional order did not include
the necessary findings on all the required relevant statutory subsections. Unlike
T.S., this case required factual findings for the trial court to determine, which
the trial court failed to do. The lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law
has impeded our review. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Indiana Code
Section 31-34-19-10.
Conclusion
[9] We remand for the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law
consistent with Indiana Code Section 31-34-19-10.
[10] Remanded.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 7 of 8
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 8 of 8