A.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 09/06/2017, 11:46 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
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
Victoria L. Bailey Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
A.C., September 6, 2017
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1704-JC-804
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Indiana Department of Child The Honorable Marilyn A.
Services, Moores, Judge
Appellee-Petitioner The Honorable Rosanne Ang,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49D09-1608-JC-3231, 49D09-1608-
JC-3232, 49D09-1608-JC-3233
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] A.C.’s three minor children were adjudicated Children in Need of Services
(CHINS) in December 2016, and a dispositional decree was entered. In March
2017, following a modification hearing, the trial court modified the
dispositional decree and ordered A.C. to participate in home-based therapy.
A.C. appeals, arguing that the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS)
presented insufficient evidence to support the modification. Determining that
the appeal is moot, however, we dismiss without reaching the issue presented.
Facts & Procedural History
[2] On August 29, 2016, DCS filed the instant CHINS petition, which alleged that
A.C. failed to provide her children with a safe and stable environment, free
from domestic violence. During a subsequent mediation, A.C. admitted that
the children were CHINS and agreed to participate in services. Accordingly, at
the fact-finding/dispositional hearing on December 6, 2016, A.C. admitted that
the children were CHINS. The trial court adjudicated the children CHINS and
ordered A.C. to participate in home-based case management and follow all
recommendations. She was also ordered to provide verification of completion
of domestic violence classes.
[3] After concerns arose that A.C. was once again having contact with her
youngest child’s father, with whom she had a significant history of domestic
violence, a modification hearing was held on March 23, 2017. Over A.C.’s
objection, the trial court granted DCS’s request to modify A.C.’s disposition to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 4
include home-based therapy. A.C. appeals from this modification based on a
claim of insufficient evidence.
[4] While this appeal was pending, on August 23, 2017, A.C. filed with this court a
Verified Notice Regarding Post-Judgment Change in Circumstances (the
Notice). In the Notice, A.C. indicated that the CHINS case has been closed
and the children have been placed back in her care, custody, and control. A.C.
acknowledged in the Notice that this could render the appeal moot, and she
asserted no argument against finding the appeal moot.
Discussion & Decision
[5] An appeal is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the
parties before the court. In re F.S., 53 N.E.3d 582, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Generally, when the controversy at issue has been disposed of in a manner that
renders it unnecessary to decide the question presented, the appeal will be
dismissed. Id. A moot case, however, may be decided on its merits when the
case involves questions of great public interest or where leaving the judgment
undisturbed might lead to negative collateral consequences. Id.
[6] Mother makes no argument that we should address the merits of her appeal
despite its mootness. Notably, Mother’s appeal is not from the initial CHINS
adjudication, which could have harmful collateral future consequences. See In
re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290-91 (Ind. 2014) (reversing a CHINS adjudication
even though child had already been returned to mother’s care and the CHINS
case had been closed). And her sufficiency challenge to the modification does
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 4
not present a question of great public interest. Cf. In re F.S., 53 N.E.3d at 591
(“this case involves a matter of constitutional proportions and is of great public
interest”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
[7] Dismissed.
[8] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 4