Call Now

Call Now

Call Now


Breaking News, What You Need To Know: Indiana Court of Appeals Reverses CHINS Finding, Determining State Coercion Unnecessary

Breaking News, What You Need To Know: Indiana Court of Appeals Reverses CHINS Finding, Determining State Coercion Unnecessary

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the “fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”1 This fundamental right to parent is why the Indiana Courts place the burden of proof on the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) when it comes to proving that a child is a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Specifically, our Indiana Supreme Court has found that DCS must prove three basic elements for a CHINS finding.2 Those elements are: (1) that the parent’s actions or inactions have seriously endangered the child; (2) that the child’s needs are unmet; and (3) that those needs are unlikely to be met without State coercion.3 But what happens if DCS fails to prove all three elements? Do the courts actually enforce this requirement? The Court of Appeals just recently dealt with these questions in In the Matter of E.Y.;4 this important case is the focus of this blog and one you need to know and understand if you are a parent and ultimately wind up in a DCS investigation.

In the Matter of E.Y., the Indiana Court of Appeals highlighted the importance of proving all the above-named factors before making a CHINS determination. The relevant facts are as follows. Mother and Father had been in a relationship for seven years, and had one child together, namely E.Y. Also living with Mother and Father were Mother’s three older children from a previous marriage. The three older children considered Father to be their biological Father. The oldest child, Am.M., began demonstrating behavioral problems beginning in 2017. Father and Mother took her to see a therapist. Am.M. told the therapist that there was “a great deal of domestic violence in the home.” The therapist then contacted DCS to report the problem. A DCS caseworker went to the home, and after interviewing the parents and children, did not find anything “concerning or noteworthy.” Nevertheless, DCS filed a petition to find the child to be a CHINS.

At the trial, Mother and Father both testified that no domestic violence had ever occurred in their house. Furthermore, Father had never been convicted of any crime, especially a crime of domestic violence. Despite the lack of evidence for a CHINS finding, Father was willing “to do anything to reunite his family.” The trial court eventually found that the children were CHINS, and Father appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted the importance of establishing all three elements before making a CHINS finding. Specifically, the Court stated that a finding that the children’s needs would go unmet absent State intervention may be the “most critical” element to prove. The reasoning is that “the last element guards against unwarranted State interference in family life.” The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the trial court’s determination, stating “[w]hen coercion is not necessary, the State may not intrude into a family’s life.”

Unfortunately, cases like these are not rare. These types of cases happen with frequency and happen to ordinary people. Finding yourself in the middle of a CHINS proceeding can be intimidating, as well as frustrating. Fighting for your rights against a big governmental organization like DCS can often lead to a plethora of adverse consequences if you do not know your rights. Knowing the status of developments in the law is the key to protecting your right as a parent, as well as being an engaged citizen in our participatory system of government. This blog post on a key new case was written by attorneys at Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. who deal with all aspects of CHINS proceedings throughout the state. Knowing the law is a key to be an engaged citizen. Having counsel current on the latest developments in family law provides you with the best defense. This blog is written for educational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice or a solicitation for services. It is an advertisement.

  1. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
  2. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014)
  3. Id.
  4. In the Matter of E.Y. (Minor Child) and J.M. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 19A-JC-114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

We Listen & Care

Proven & experienced attorneys successfully advocating & resolving complex cases for over 25 years

Quick Contact

Need to talk now? Fill out the quick form below and we will contact you directly.
Blog Categories

Get In Touch

We're available to answer your questions 24/7.

Contact Us

Please fill out the form below and we will be in touch with you shortly.

Dixon & Moseley, P.C., is a law firm located in Indianapolis, Indiana. We serve clients in six core practice areas: family lawappellate practicefirearms lawgeneral practicepersonal injury and criminal law.

Call Now

Copyright © 2024 Ciyou & Dixon, P.C., Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. This Site does not provide legal advice; please review the disclaimer for other limitations. Privacy Policy

Based in Indianapolis and founded in 1995, Dixon & Moseley, P.C. is a niche law firm focused on successfully dealing with the complexities of divorce, high-conflict child custody and family law. Known for their ability to solve extremely complex situations with high quality work and responsiveness, Dixon & Moseley, P.C. will guide you every step of the way. The family law attorneys at Dixon & Moseley, P.C. will help you precisely identify your objectives and the means to reach your desired result. Life is uncertain. Be certain of your counsel. Indianapolis Divorce Attorneys, Dixon & Moseley, P.C.

Indianapolis Divorce Attorneys, Dixon & Moseley, P.C. of Indianapolis, Indiana, offers legal services for Indianapolis, Zionsville, Noblesville, Carmel, Avon, Anderson, Danville, Greenwood, Brownsburg, Geist, Fortville, McCordsville, Muncie, Greenfield, Westfield, Fort Wayne, Fishers, Bloomington, Lafayette, Marion County, Hamilton County, Hendricks County, Allen County, Delaware County, Morgan County, Hendricks County, Boone County, Vigo County, Johnson County, Hancock County, and Tippecanoe County, Indiana.