Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1607-JC-1622
03-20-2017
In the Matter of: J.T. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and Child Advocates, Inc., Appellant-Guardian Ad Litem, v. D.T. (Mother), Co-Appellee-Respondent, and The Indiana Department of Child Services, Co-Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Toby Gill Child Advocates, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE D.T. (MOTHER) Victoria L. Bailey Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke David E. Corey Deputy Attorneys 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
Toby Gill
Child Advocates, Inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
D.T. (MOTHER)
Victoria L. Bailey
Marion County
Public Defender Agency
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CHILD SERVICES
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court
The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge
The Honorable Danielle P. Gaughan, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No. 49D09-1307-JC-16390
The Honorable Stephen Eichholtz, Judge
Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1601-GU-2310
Baker, Judge.
[1] Child Advocates, Inc., appeals two events that occurred below: (1) the transfer of a guardianship case from probate court to juvenile court; and (2) an order in a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) case changing the child's permanency plan from adoption to reunification.
[2] As for the guardianship case, the transfer order is not a final and appealable order. Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). Moreover, Child Advocates requested that the transfer take place; as such, any error was invited. Appellant's GU App. Vol. II p. 34; Appellant's CHINS App. Vol. II p. 26. As for the CHINS case, the permanency plan order is not a final and appealable order. In re D.W., 52 N.E.3d 839, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.
[3] As for both cases, the CHINS case has been closed and the guardianship case has been voluntarily dismissed by Child Advocates. We can offer no effective relief to the parties, and the case is therefore moot. E.g., DeSalle v. Gentry, 818
N.E.2d 40, 48-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). For all of these reasons, we hereby dismiss this appeal.
[4] The appeal is dismissed.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.