A rare published opinion in a CHINS appeal…

Very few CHINS determinations in Indiana are appealed. Of those that are appealed, rarely is a published opinion issued. Yesterday, the Court of Appeals of Indiana issued one of those rare published CHINS opinions. In K.S. v. IDCS, Mother moved out of the home, where she was living with Father and their three children, including young twins. The twins’ maternal grandmother became concerned about Father’s care of the twins and allowed the twins to move in with her.

DCS filed a petition alleging the twins were in need of services. The twins were determined to be in need of services and remained in Grandmother’s care. Mother appealed the CHINS determination, arguing that because the twins were being well cared for at Grandmother’s home they were not in need of services.

The Court of Appeals upheld the CHINS determination, recognizing that without the determination Grandmother had no legal authority to care for the twins and to act on their behalf. She could not seek medical care for the twins, enroll them in school, or prohibit Mother from taking custody of the children at any time. Consequently, the Court held the CHINS determination was needed to provide Grandmother with the legal authority she needed to continue meeting the twins’ needs.

More specifically, the Court stated the following: “the CHINS case should continue until maternal grandmother has legal authority. In the meantime, the coercive intervention of the court is needed to provide legal authority to maternal grandmother and ensure the twins’ needs are being met.”

What makes the Court’s opinion noteworthy is that the holding implies that if Grandmother is able to obtain legal authority through other means (guardianship, custody action, power of attorney, etc.), the coercive intervention of the court will no longer be necessary and the CHINS matter could be closed. It also implies that if legal authority could have been established in Grandmother before the CHINS factfinding hearing was held, the CHINS determination likely would never have been made since DCS would have been unable to satisfy the elements required to show the twins were children in need of services.

The question remains, however, whether DCS should be required to assist Grandmother with obtaining legal authority through one of those means. Indiana’s family law is based on a policy of keeping Hoosier families intact whenever possible. Helping Grandmother establish a legal guardianship, for example, would preserve the twins’ relationship with their parents while still ensuring their needs are met.