Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JC-1698
01-04-2019
In the Matter of J.K., Child in Need of Services and C.K. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent, v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT J. Clayton Miller Jordan Law, LLC Richmond, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
J. Clayton Miller
Jordan Law, LLC
Richmond, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Appeal from the Randolph Circuit Court
The Honorable Jay L. Toney, Judge
Trial Court Cause No. 68C01-1707-JC-164
May, Judge.
[1] C.K. ("Mother") appeals the adjudication of J.K. ("Child") as a Child in Need of Services ("CHINS"). She argues the trial court erred when it denied her motion to dismiss. The Department of Child Services ("DCS") concedes the error and asks that we reverse and remand for dismissal without prejudice of the CHINS petition. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] DCS filed a petition to adjudicate Child as a CHINS on July 18, 2017. Mother filed a motion to dismiss the CHINS case on January 25, 2018, arguing the timeframe for the factfinding hearing had passed. The trial court denied Mother's motion to dismiss. The trial court held a factfinding hearing on April 12, 2018, and adjudicated Child as a CHINS on June 20, 2018.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Mother argues the trial court erred when it denied her motion to dismiss the CHINS petition because too many days passed between the filing of the petition and the court's hearing. DCS concedes the denial was error and asks that we reverse and remand for the trial court to dismiss the CHINS petition without prejudice. We accordingly reverse and remand, instructing the trial court to dismiss the CHINS petition without prejudice. See, e.g., J.M.F. v. State, 721 N.E.2d 267, 268 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate court reversed and remanded juvenile's involuntary commitment based State's concession
supported by relevant law that trial court violated certain statutory requirements regarding outpatient mental health placements).
Conclusion
[4] We reverse and remand for the trial court to dismiss the CHINS petition without prejudice.
[5] Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.