Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in a case involving adoptive parents who struggled with the behavior of their son and requested that he live with a foster family after they say they exhausted efforts to raise him and his siblings safely together.
The Whitley County case involves the 15-year-old child of adoptive parents J.S. and A.K., who has allegedly engaged in inappropriate and violent behaviors since he was adopted in 2011. At birth, the child was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. He also struggled with impulse control and anger management growing up.
The child continued to struggle throughout adolescence, including when his parents divorced, and his mom was awarded primary custody of him and his four siblings. According to court documents, many of his violent outbursts at his mom’s home stemmed from frustrations with his siblings.
In November 2022, the mother contacted the Department of Child Services for assistance, and DCS recommended wrap-around services and post-adoption care services. The child was engaged in support services within the county until December 2022, when his father was granted primary custody.
In June 2023, the child was sent to a behavioral center after attacking his father and running away from home, according to court documents. Upon being discharged, the behavioral center recommended outpatient treatment.
When the parents could not find a safe place for the child to live, they asked for help from the Department of Child Services. DCS found a foster family for the child and filed a petition stating the child was a child in need of services.
A child in need of services, or CHINS case, is when a child is physically or mentally impaired or endangered because a caregiver cannot provide adequate shelter despite having the financial means to or not taking reasonable steps to fulfill the child’s needs.
DCS’s petition was filed under the CHINS 1 statute, which states that the child’s physical or mental condition is impaired or endangered.
In August 2023, the mother asked the court to adjudicate the child under the CHINS 6 or CHINS 10 statutes. The CHINS 6 statute states that the child’s actions endanger their own or another’s health. The CHINS 10 statute states that the child was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, neonatal abstinence syndrome, or with any amount of a controlled substance or legend drug in their body.
The juvenile court dismissed the CHINS 1 petition at DCS’s request, and the next day, DCS told J.S. and A.K. they needed to pick the child up from foster care. When they didn’t, DCS filed another CHINS 1 petition.
During an evidentiary hearing on the second CHINS petition, the juvenile court adjudicated the child a CHINS 1, denying the mom’s motion pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 15(B) to have the second petition be conformed to the evidence supporting a CHINS 6 and CHINS 10 case.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the mother’s motion to adjudicate the child under CHINS 6 and CHINS 10, and the court did not clearly err when it adjudicated the child a CHINS 1 under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1.
“Mother’s failure to pick up the Child from Harsha in June 2023 and from foster placement in August 2023 does not negate all the efforts she has made and continues to make to help the Child, but she has demonstrated that she has no intention of providing the Child with necessary shelter either now or in the future … A parent cannot ‘mostly’ provide care or provide only the care a parent is ‘willing to provide’; a parent cannot take on some obligations and leave others to the State without the consequences for that decision,” Court of Appeals Judge Paul Felix wrote in the court’s memorandum decision in May 2024.
The crux of Wednesday’s oral arguments was not if the child needed CHINS services, but under which provision he should receive them.
During arguments in front of supreme court justices Mark Massa, Geoffrey Slaughter, Christopher Goff, Derek Molter, and Chief Justice Loretta Rush, counsel for the mom reasoned that a CHINS 10 would be the strongest response for the case.
In their argument, counsel for DCS said that when the department got involved, there was no evidence the child was violent, so he was not a CHINS 6 case. Counsel for DCS said CHINS 1 is sufficient because, at the time of the filing, there was no legal order granting the government custody of the child, and both the legal parents refused him in their homes and have not taken steps to solidify other arrangements.
DCS argued that if the court does not find that CHINS 1 was satisfied, the high court should vacate and order a dismissal of the case, which would send the child back to his adoptive parents.
On rebuttal, counsel for the mom said if a child is still engaged in violent behavior with his family without services, the collateral damages and relationships with his family would be much worse. She stated that if the court does not find that CHINS 1 was satisfied, the court can remand for further proceedings and push for a reexamination of whether or not there should be a CHINS 6 entry on the case.
She said if the case were dismissed at the high court level, it would deny the trial court the chance to hear evidence to see if services are appropriate.
The case is In the Matter of E.K. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services; J.S. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services,
24S-JC-00300.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.