In the Matter of J.B. and L.B.: J.J. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

FILED
Jun 08 2016, 8:39 am

CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Nancy A. McCaslin Gregory F. Zoeller
McCaslin & McCaslin Attorney General
Elkhart, Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorney General

David E. Corey
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of J.B. and L.B.: June 8, 2016
Court of Appeals Case No.
20A05-1510-JC-1612
J.J. (Mother),
Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Appellant-Respondent, Court
The Honorable Deborah Domine,
v.
Magistrate
The Honorable Terry C.
The Indiana Department of Shewmaker, Judge
Child Services,
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner. 20C01-1507-JC-82
20C01-1507-JC-83

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 1 of 7
 Case Summary
[1] J.J. (Mother) and G.B. (Father) shared custody of their children pursuant to a

paternity court’s custody order. When Mother, high on methamphetamine, got

into a car accident with the children, the Indiana Department of Child Services

placed the children with Father and filed a petition alleging that the children

were in need of services. After Mother and Father admitted that the children

were CHINS, the juvenile court entered an order that modified custody of the

children pursuant to the custody-modification statutes—giving Father full

custody and Mother supervised parenting time—and discharged the parties.

[2] While the juvenile court could enter a dispositional decree that removed the

children from Mother and authorized DCS to place them with Father, as soon

as the court discharged the parties, it lost jurisdiction. At this point, jurisdiction

reverted to the paternity court, where the paternity court’s joint custody order

controlled. We therefore reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History
[3] Mother and Father are the parents of J.B., born July 30, 2004, and L.B., born

August 27, 2007.1 Mother and Father were never married. Although the

parties did not provide us with any records from the paternity case, it appears

1
There is a third child, D.B., born June 28, 2010, but this appeal does not involve D.B., as D.B. was
addressed separately. Accordingly, our reference to “children” includes only J.B. and L.B.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 2 of 7
 that Father established paternity to the children, and Elkhart Superior Court 6

awarded joint legal and physical custody of the children to Mother and Father

under Cause No. 20D06-0802-JP-107.

[4] On July 12, 2015, Mother and the children were involved in a car accident.

Mother was under the influence of methamphetamine and “black[ed] out”

immediately before the accident, methamphetamine and needles were found in

Mother’s purse, and the children were not properly restrained. Tr. p. 8.

Mother had been struggling with methamphetamine abuse for about a year.

[5] After someone reported the car accident to DCS, DCS began a preliminary

inquiry. A detention hearing was held on July 27 in Elkhart Circuit Court,

Juvenile Division. Also that day, DCS filed a petition alleging that the children

were CHINS under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. Finding that it was “in the

best interests of the children to be removed from [Mother’s] care and home

environment,” the juvenile court placed the children with Father and set an

initial hearing on the CHINS petition. Appellant’s App. p. 31.

[6] At the August 3 initial hearing, Mother and Father each admitted that the

children were CHINS. Specifically, Mother admitted that the children were

CHINS based on the car accident and her drug use, which raised concerns for

the children’s safety. And Father admitted that the children were CHINS based

on the fact that the children were not safe in Mother’s care and he could not

“restrict the children’s visits with their mother” because they shared custody.

Id. at 38. The juvenile court found that the children were CHINS and accepted

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 3 of 7
 DCS’s recommendation regarding services. Id. at 39. DCS had recommended

services for Mother only. Id. at 43, 45. The juvenile court scheduled a

dispositional hearing for September 3.

[7] But before the September 3 dispositional hearing, DCS filed a “Motion for

Change of Custody,” which alleged, based on the car accident, that there “has

been a substantial change in one or more of the factors which the Court may

consider under Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8[2] for purpose[s] of modifying custody

under the order entered in Elkhart Superior Court 6.” Id. at 57. DCS asked the

juvenile court to give Father full custody of the children and to close the

CHINS case. Tr. p. 32. The juvenile court held a hearing on September 3,

following which it entered an order giving Father sole legal and physical

custody of the children and Mother supervised parenting time. Appellant’s

App. p. 9. Although the juvenile court noted that the purpose of a CHINS case

“is not to mediate a custody dispute,” it found that there “has been a substantial

change in one or more of the factors which the Court must consider in issuing

custody orders as spelled out in I.C. § 31-17-2-8.” Id. at 8-9. The juvenile court

then discharged the children and parents and terminated the CHINS case, one

month after the children were found to be CHINS. Id. at 9.

[8] Mother now appeals.

2
Section 31-17-2-8 applies to modifications of custody in dissolution proceedings. In paternity proceedings,
however, the relevant statute is Indiana Code section 31-14-13-6. Nevertheless, the dissolution and paternity
statutes contain nearly identical language.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 4 of 7
 Discussion and Decision
[9] Mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to modify custody of the

children in the CHINS case. Juvenile courts have “exclusive original

jurisdiction” over CHINS cases filed under Indiana Code article 31-34, except

as provided in Indiana Code section 31-30-1-13. Ind. Code § 31-30-1-1.3

Section 31-30-1-13(a), in turn, provides that a trial court that has jurisdiction of

a child-custody proceeding in a paternity case has “concurrent original

jurisdiction” with a CHINS court for purposes of modifying that child’s

custody.4 In other words, Section 31-30-1-13 extends custodial decision-making

to paternity courts during the pendency of CHINS proceedings. Reynolds v.

Dewees, 797 N.E.2d 798, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); see also In re M.B., No.

65S04-1604-MI-180 (Ind. Apr. 12, 2016) (addressing a trial court’s jurisdiction

in an independent action for custody when a CHINS case is pending in juvenile

court).

[10] But this is not what happened here. Father did not file an independent action

for custody in the paternity court, Elkhart Superior Court 6. Rather, DCS

sought to modify Elkhart Superior Court 6’s custody order in the CHINS court.

After a child is found to be a CHINS, the juvenile court must hold a

3
Section 31-30-1-1 lists other exceptions.
4
Similarly, Indiana Code section 31-30-1-12(a) provides that a trial court that has jurisdiction of a child-
custody, parenting-time, or child-support proceeding in a marriage dissolution has “concurrent original
jurisdiction” with a CHINS court for purposes of modifying that child’s custody.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 5 of 7
 dispositional hearing within thirty days to consider, among other things,

“placement of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-34-19-1(a). The juvenile court may

enter several dispositional decrees, including: “Remove the child from the

child’s home and authorize the department to place the child in another home,

shelter care facility, child caring institution, group home, or secure private

facility.” Ind. Code § 31-34-20-1(a)(3).

[11] “When the juvenile court finds that the objectives of the dispositional decree

have been met, the court shall discharge the child and the child’s parents,

guardian, or custodian.” Ind. Code § 31-34-21-11. The juvenile court’s

jurisdiction over a CHINS and over the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian

ends when the court discharges the child and the child’s parent, guardian, or

custodian. Ind. Code § 31-30-2-1(a)(1).

[12] While the juvenile court could enter a dispositional decree that removed the

children from Mother and authorized DCS to place them with Father, as soon

as the juvenile court discharged the parties, it lost jurisdiction. This meant that

the CHINS court no longer had concurrent jurisdiction, and jurisdiction

reverted to the paternity court, where the paternity court’s joint custody order

controlled. But because it appears that the juvenile court would not have

discharged the parties and terminated the CHINS case had it not thought that

Father was getting full custody, we reverse and remand this case for further

proceedings.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 6 of 7
Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A05-1510-JC-1612 | June 8, 2016 Page 7 of 7