A.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 09/06/2017, 11:46 am

this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals 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 Victoria L. Bailey Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.C., September 6, 2017 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1704-JC-804 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Indiana Department of Child The Honorable Marilyn A. Services, Moores, Judge Appellee-Petitioner The Honorable Rosanne Ang, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D09-1608-JC-3231, 49D09-1608- JC-3232, 49D09-1608-JC-3233

Altice, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 4

Case Summary [1] A.C.’s three minor children were adjudicated Children in Need of Services

(CHINS) in December 2016, and a dispositional decree was entered. In March

2017, following a modification hearing, the trial court modified the

dispositional decree and ordered A.C. to participate in home-based therapy.

A.C. appeals, arguing that the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS)

presented insufficient evidence to support the modification. Determining that

the appeal is moot, however, we dismiss without reaching the issue presented.

Facts & Procedural History [2] On August 29, 2016, DCS filed the instant CHINS petition, which alleged that

A.C. failed to provide her children with a safe and stable environment, free

from domestic violence. During a subsequent mediation, A.C. admitted that

the children were CHINS and agreed to participate in services. Accordingly, at

the fact-finding/dispositional hearing on December 6, 2016, A.C. admitted that

the children were CHINS. The trial court adjudicated the children CHINS and

ordered A.C. to participate in home-based case management and follow all

recommendations. She was also ordered to provide verification of completion

of domestic violence classes. [3] After concerns arose that A.C. was once again having contact with her

youngest child’s father, with whom she had a significant history of domestic

violence, a modification hearing was held on March 23, 2017. Over A.C.’s

objection, the trial court granted DCS’s request to modify A.C.’s disposition to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 4

include home-based therapy. A.C. appeals from this modification based on a

claim of insufficient evidence. [4] While this appeal was pending, on August 23, 2017, A.C. filed with this court a

Verified Notice Regarding Post-Judgment Change in Circumstances (the

Notice). In the Notice, A.C. indicated that the CHINS case has been closed

and the children have been placed back in her care, custody, and control. A.C.

acknowledged in the Notice that this could render the appeal moot, and she

asserted no argument against finding the appeal moot.

Discussion & Decision [5] An appeal is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the

parties before the court. In re F.S., 53 N.E.3d 582, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Generally, when the controversy at issue has been disposed of in a manner that

renders it unnecessary to decide the question presented, the appeal will be

dismissed. Id. A moot case, however, may be decided on its merits when the

case involves questions of great public interest or where leaving the judgment

undisturbed might lead to negative collateral consequences. Id. [6] Mother makes no argument that we should address the merits of her appeal

despite its mootness. Notably, Mother’s appeal is not from the initial CHINS

adjudication, which could have harmful collateral future consequences. See In

re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290-91 (Ind. 2014) (reversing a CHINS adjudication

even though child had already been returned to mother’s care and the CHINS

case had been closed). And her sufficiency challenge to the modification does

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 4

not present a question of great public interest. Cf. In re F.S., 53 N.E.3d at 591

(“this case involves a matter of constitutional proportions and is of great public

interest”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. [7] Dismissed. [8] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-JC-804 | September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 4