In the Matter of C.C., Child in Need of Services C.C. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
Apr 08 2013, 9:50 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
MARK SMALL PATRICK M. RHODES
Marion County Public Defender Agency DCS Marion County
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
ROBERT J. HENKE
DCS Central Administration
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF C.C., )
CHILD IN NEED OF SERVICES; )
)
C.C. (father), )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A04-1208-JC-440
)
INDIANA DEPARMENT OF )
CHILD SERVICES, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Marilyn Moores, Judge
The Honorable Beth Jansen, Magistrate
Cause No. 49D09-1112-JC-47971
April 8, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
Appellant-Respondent C.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s adjudication of his
son as a child in need of services. C.C. argues only that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the case, claiming the alleged acts or omissions on which the case was
based occurred in Jamaica, not Indiana. Concluding that the juvenile court had subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-30-1-1(2), we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In April of 2009, C.C. (“Father”) gained sole custody of his now-seven-year-old
son C.C. (“Child”) as a result of a child in need of services (“CHINS”) proceeding
involving Child’s mother C.N. (“Mother”), a Marion County resident. Shortly thereafter,
Father took Child to Jamaica to live. Over the next two years, Father travelled back to
the United States on multiple occasions, leaving Child in the care of friends in Jamaica.
In August of 2011, while visiting the United States, Father was arrested on federal
charges of neglect of a dependent based on allegations that Father physically abused his
grandchildren. Father has been incarcerated in Arizona since that time. Child, however,
remained in Jamaica until December of 2011, when federal authorities repatriated Child
to the United States. The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) assigned Family Case
Manager (“FCM”) Michael Abell to determine the best placement for Child upon his
return. When Child arrived in Indianapolis, FCM Abell observed Child to have bruises
on his body. Child explained that his caregiver in Jamaica had inflicted the bruises on
2
him as a form of discipline.
DCS placed Child with Mother and filed a CHINS petition as to Mother and
Father on December 20, 2011. On February 13, 2012, the juvenile court held a
factfinding hearing, at which Mother admitted to the CHINS allegation. The court
adjudicated Child a CHINS, ordered Mother to participate in services, and continued
Child’s placement with Mother.
On April 25, 2012, DCS requested that Child be removed from Mother’s care
because Child had several behavioral needs that Mother could not address. These
included impulsivity, hyperactivity, and sexually maladaptive behaviors. Neither Mother
nor Father objected to Child’s removal. On April 30, 2012, the court modified Mother’s
dispositional order to reflect the removal and to authorize therapeutic foster care for
Child.
On August 3, 2012, the juvenile court held a factfinding hearing on the CHINS
allegation as to Father. The court found that “[Child] has a Mother who cannot meet his
special needs, and a Father who is incarcerated.” Appellant’s App. p. 142. From this, the
court concluded that “the physical and mental condition of this child continues to be
seriously impaired or endangered” and that “Mother cannot meet his needs and Father is
unavailable to parent.” Appellant’s App. p. 142. The court also concluded that “[Child]
needs care, treatment, or rehabilitation that [he] would not receive but for the cohercive
[sic] intervention of the Court.” Appellant’s App. p. 142. The court adjudicated Child a
CHINS, set the matter for a dispositional hearing, and continued Child’s placement in
foster care.
3
On August 30, 2012, the juvenile court held Father’s dispositional hearing, where
it maintained Child’s placement in foster care and ordered Father to participate in
services. Father moved for the court to set aside the CHINS adjudication and rehear the
case, which motion the court denied. Father filed this appeal on August 31, 2012.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Father argues that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate Child a CHINS. “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which any particular proceeding belongs.” K.S. v.
State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind. 2006). “A tribunal receives subject matter jurisdiction
over a class of cases only from the constitution or from statutes.” Georgetown Bd. of
Zoning Appeals v. Keele, 743 N.E.2d 301, 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Subject matter
jurisdiction is an issue of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review.”
Lombardi v. Van Deusen, 938 N.E.2d 219, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Father claims that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the alleged acts
or omissions on which the CHINS petition was based occurred in Jamaica.1 This claim,
however, has no bearing on whether the juvenile court had the requisite subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the case. “The question of subject matter jurisdiction entails a
1
Although not necessary to our disposition of this matter, we note that Father’s claim erroneously
relies on Indiana Code section 31-34-1-2(a): “A child is a [CHINS] if … the child’s physical or mental
health is seriously endangered due to injury by the act or omission of the child’s parent….” (Emphasis
added). DCS’s CHINS petition and the juvenile court’s judgment thereon are based on Indiana Code
section 31-34-1-1: “A child is a [CHINS] if …the child’s physical or mental condition is seriously
impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child’s parent … to
supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision….”
(Emphasis added). The court concluded that Child’s “physical and mental condition” is “seriously
impaired or endangered” and that “Father is unavailable to parent” as a result of his incarceration in
Arizona. Appellant’s App. p. 142. Thus, contrary to Father’s claim, the CHINS petition and adjudication
were not based on acts or omissions that occurred in Jamaica.
4
determination of whether a court has jurisdiction over the general class of actions to
which a particular case belongs.” Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745, 749 (Ind. 2000).
“The only relevant inquiry in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction
is whether the kind of claim advanced by the petitioner falls within the general scope of
authority conferred upon such a court by the constitution or by statute.” Hite v.
Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 845 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind. Ct. App.
2006).
Here, Indiana Code section 31-30-1-1(2) provides that “[a] juvenile court has
exclusive original jurisdiction” in “[p]roceedings in which a child … is alleged to be a
child in need of services….” See In re K.B., 793 N.E.2d 1191, 1198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
(holding that exclusive original jurisdiction exists from the moment a CHINS petition is
issued). Thus, the juvenile court undoubtedly had subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate Child a CHINS.
The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
RILEY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
5