CHINS: Child Advocates, Inc., Guardian Ad Litem v. DT (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 20 2017, 9:56 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Toby Gill D.T. (MOTHER)
Child Advocates, Inc. Victoria L. Bailey
Indianapolis, Indiana Marion County
Public Defender Agency
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CHILD SERVICES
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: March 20, 2017
J.T. (Minor Child), Child in Court of Appeals Case No.
Need of Services, 49A02-1607-JC-1622
and Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Child Advocates, Inc.,
The Honorable Marilyn A.
Appellant-Guardian Ad Litem, Moores, Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 3
 v. The Honorable Danielle P.
Gaughan, Magistrate
D.T. (Mother), Trial Court Cause No.
49D09-1307-JC-16390
Co-Appellee-Respondent,
The Honorable Stephen Eichholtz,
and Judge

The Indiana Department of Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1601-GU-2310
Child Services,
Co-Appellee-Petitioner

Baker, Judge.

[1] Child Advocates, Inc., appeals two events that occurred below: (1) the transfer

of a guardianship case from probate court to juvenile court; and (2) an order in

a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) case changing the child’s permanency

plan from adoption to reunification.

[2] As for the guardianship case, the transfer order is not a final and appealable

order. Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). Moreover, Child Advocates requested that the

transfer take place; as such, any error was invited. Appellant’s GU App. Vol. II

p. 34; Appellant’s CHINS App. Vol. II p. 26. As for the CHINS case, the

permanency plan order is not a final and appealable order. In re D.W., 52

N.E.3d 839, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[3] As for both cases, the CHINS case has been closed and the guardianship case

has been voluntarily dismissed by Child Advocates. We can offer no effective

relief to the parties, and the case is therefore moot. E.g., DeSalle v. Gentry, 818

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 3
 N.E.2d 40, 48-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). For all of these reasons, we hereby

dismiss this appeal.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 3