Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: FLORENCE ANNE BRIGGS Briggs Law Office Flora, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL E. BOONSTRA Logansport, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
HEATHER PARMETER, Appellant, vs. CASS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 09A05-0703-JV-158

APPEAL FROM THE CASS CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Robert McCallen, III, Special Judge Cause Nos. 09C01-0606-JC-15 and 09C01-0606-JC-16

December 28, 2007

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Heather Parmeter ("Mother") appeals from the trial court's determination that her minor children, a son C.P. ("son") and a daughter C.P. ("daughter") (collectively "the children"), are children in need of services ("CHINS"). We address four issues for our review, namely: 1. 2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the CHINS cases. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mother's motion to dismiss the CHINS cases. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mother's motion to strike the report of the guardian ad litem ("GAL"). Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the CHINS determinations.

3.

4.

We affirm in part and remand with instructions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY While Mother was married to Shonn Parmeter ("Father"), she gave birth to twin children, son and daughter. Sometime after the children were born, Mother and Father separated, and, in 2006, dissolution proceedings were initiated. The parties' divorce was final in the fall of 2006. On June 7, 2006, the Cass County Department of Child Services ("DCS") investigated a report that naked photographs had been taken of son. As a result of that investigation, on June 8, 2006, DCS filed petitions for authorization to file petitions alleging son and daughter to be CHINS. After receiving permission from the trial court, the DCS filed the CHINS petitions and requested the immediate detention of the children.

2

At the detention hearing on June 8, the trial court denied Mother's motion to dismiss the petitions and heard evidence on the detention request. The trial court then ordered the children to be temporary wards of DCS for placement in a foster home and appointed Lisa Traylor-Wolff as GAL. On June 30, 2006, Mother filed a motion for an expedited fact-finding hearing. On August 1, 2006, DCS filed a motion to continue the fact-finding hearing that had been set for August 2. Mother objected to the continuance. The trial court originally denied the motion but, after reviewing DCS's motion to reconsider, granted the continuance and reset the fact-finding hearing for September 12, 2006. Mother then filed a motion to continue the September 12 hearing date, which the trial court granted, resetting the hearing for October 16 and 17, 2006. On August 10, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the CHINS petition, which the trial court denied. On August 15, 2006, Mother again filed a motion to continue the fact-finding hearing, which the trial court denied. The fact-finding hearing commenced on October 16, 2006, but, on October 17, 2006, the trial court again continued the hearing on Mother's motion and because of "technical difficulties." Appellant's Supp. App. at 129. The trial court resumed the fact-finding hearing on November 17 and, at the conclusion of evidence, took the matter under advisement. On November 28, 2006, the trial court entered its order finding the children to be CHINS. After a review hearing on December 4, 2006, the trial court continued the children's placement with Father.1

The parties do not indicate, nor could we find in the Appendices, when the children were first placed with Father during the course of the CHINS proceedings.

1

3

On December 22, 2006, Mother filed her objection to length of time before dispositional hearing, which was set for February 26, 2007. On December 29, the GAL filed her report ("GAL report"). And on January 12, 2007, Mother filed her objection to the GAL report, alleging that the GAL had a conflict of interest because the GAL had become "the law partner of Kelly Leeman, attorney for [Father], on or about January 1, 2007."2 Appellant's App. at 115. On January 17, 2007, the GAL filed her motion to withdraw appearance on the ground that her plan to move her practice into the offices of Father's attorney created the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, the GAL also filed a response to Mother's objection to the GAL report, clarifying that the GAL had not become the law partner of Father's counsel. Instead, the GAL was assuming the law practice of another attorney, whose files were located in the office of Father's counsel. She further clarified that her plans to share office space with Father's counsel were not discussed or finalized prior to the filing of the GAL report. On February 22, 2007, Mother filed her motion to reverse or set aside the CHINS finding. At the dispositional hearing on February 26, 2007, the trial court denied

Mother's motion and then heard evidence on the disposition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took disposition under advisement. On March 7, 2007, Mother again filed a motion to dismiss the CHINS petition. On March 13, 2007, the trial court

The allegation was based on a local newspaper article, which reported that Father's attorney had been named as the Logansport city attorney and the GAL had been named as the deputy city attorney.

2

4

"execute[d the] Dispositional Decree dated March 8, 2007[.]" Appellant's App. at 13. Mother now appeals.3 DISCUSSION AND DECISION Issue One: Jurisdiction Mother contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction over the CHINS cases.4 Specifically, she alleges that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not hold the fact-finding and dispositional hearings within the statutory time limits for holding such hearings. She also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted DCS's motions to continue the fact-finding hearing. We address each contention in turn. Statutory Hearing Time Limits Mother maintains that the trial court was without jurisdiction over the CHINS cases because it did not hold the fact-finding or dispositional hearings within the statutorily prescribed time limits. Indiana Code Section 31-34-11-1 governs fact-finding hearings. That statute provides, in relevant part: (a) [T]he juvenile court shall complete a factfinding hearing not more than sixty (60) days after a petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services is filed in accordance with IC 31-34-9.

On April 11, 2007, the trial court entered its "Order Terminating Wardship." Appellant's App. at 126. But that order does not render the appeal moot. See Roark v. Roark, 551 N.E.2d 865, 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (holding an appeal from a CHINS determination, after termination of the CHINS case, is not moot because of the "potentially devastating consequences of a CHINS determination"). Mother also alleges, in passing, that the petitions alleging the children to be CHINS did not include the supporting factual bases for DCS's allegations. But Mother did not object to proceeding with the CHINS matters on that ground before the trial court granted DCS's motion to file the CHINS petitions. Thus, the issue is waived. Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 532 (Ind. 2006).
4

3

5

(b) The juvenile court may extend the time to complete a factfinding hearing, as described in subsection (a), for an additional sixty (60) days if all parties in the action consent to the additional time. Ind. Code

Download Heather Parmeter v. Cass County Dept. of Child Services.pdf

Indiana Law