CHINS: EF v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
May 09 2017, 9:34 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
CLERK
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
regarded as precedent or cited before any 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
Joel C. Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Robert J. Henke
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: May 9, 2017
U.F., A.F. & N.F. (Minor Children) Court of Appeals Case No.
Children in Need of Services 60A01-1607-JC-1677
and Appeal from the Owen Circuit
Court
L.F. (Mother),
The Honorable Kelsey Hanlon,
Appellant-Respondent, Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
60C02-1602-JC-31
60C02-1602-JC-32
The Indiana Department of Child 60C02-1602-JC-34
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary and Issue
[1] L.F. (“Mother”) and E.F.1 (“Father”) adopted N.F., U.F., and A.F. from
certain Native American tribes in Alaska. In 2016, the juvenile court
adjudicated N.F., U.F., and A.F. as children in need of services (“CHINS”)
and placed U.F. and A.F. in non-Native American foster care.2 Mother
appealed this ruling alleging the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian
Child Welfare Act and sought a new hearing to determine whether U.F. and
A.F. should be returned to Mother. Following Mother’s filing of her notice of
appeal, the trial court ordered the children to be returned to Mother and the
parties agree this case is now moot. However, Mother argues the case should
be decided on its merits under the public interest exception. Concluding this
case is moot and does not justify our review under the public interest exception,
we dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and Father adopted three boys, N.F., U.F., and A.F. through tribal
adoption in Alaska. All three of the boys are seven years old. In February of
2016, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that
A.F. had red marks across his face. Mother admitted to slapping A.F. and
1
Father is now deceased.
2
N.F. was placed with his biological mother and remains in her care pursuant to an agreement between the
parties.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 2 of 5
further investigation revealed Mother often used physical punishment with her
children including hitting them with spatulas, switches, and spoons. The DCS
also discovered that U.F. and A.F. slept in playpens which Mother covered
with a table or dog gates so they could not get out during the night. The DCS
removed the children and filed a petition alleging that the children were in need
of services. The DCS placed U.F. and A.F. with a local foster care in the area
and placed N.F. with his biological mother.
[3] On March 14, 2016, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the CHINS allegations
arguing the DCS and juvenile court had not complied with certain provisions of
the Indian Child Welfare Act. The juvenile court denied Mother’s motion, but
granted her subsequent motion requesting the juvenile court certify its order for
interlocutory appeal. This court declined to accept jurisdiction over the case.
On April 11, 2016, the juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing and concluded
the children were CHINS and that removal of the children from their home and
continued placement in foster care was necessary for their safety and well-being.
A dispositional hearing was held on July 19, 2016, at which time the court
adopted the DCS’ recommendations. Mother filed her notice of appeal on July
20, 2016.
[4] On August 5, 2016, Mother filed a motion to terminate placement and for
immediate return of U.F. and A.F. Following a hearing on the matter on
August 10, 2016, the juvenile court granted Mother’s motion and ordered the
immediate return of U.F. and A.F. to her care and custody. See Appendix of
Appellee, Volume II at 5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[5] On appeal, Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s adjudication of the
children as CHINS. Rather, Mother challenges the children’s placement in
foster care and alleges the juvenile court and the DCS failed to comply with
provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. ch. 21 et seq. The
relief requested by Mother was granted by the juvenile court on August 10,
2016, when the court ordered the immediate return of the children to her care
and custody.
[6] The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a case is deemed moot and will be
dismissed when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the
court. In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). Indiana’s courts have also
long recognized a case that is otherwise moot may nevertheless be decided on
its merits when the case involves a question of “great public interest.” Id. at 37.
We have defined cases of “great public interest” as those that “raise important
policy concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.” Mosley v. State, 908
N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009).
[7] We disagree with Mother that this case involves important policy concerns or
an issue likely to recur. Our research reveals relatively few cases in the State of
Indiana involving the Indian Child Welfare Act, and even fewer of those
involve disputes concerning the DCS. This case does not fall within the “great
public interest” exception and we decline to review Mother’s case on the merits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
[8] The parties agree this case has been rendered moot and we disagree with
Mother that it should be reviewed under the “great public interest” exception.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
[9] Dismissed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A01-1607-JC-1677 | May 9, 2017 Page 5 of 5