Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-JC-2413 | April 18, 2017 Page 1 of 5

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

Megan Shipley

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: 

I.K. (Minor Child)

Child in Need of Services

and

S.S. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

April 18, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1610-JC-2413

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Heather Welch, 

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1602-JC-545

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-JC-2413 | April 18, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary and Issues

[1] S.S. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s adjudication of her child, I.K. 

(“Child”), as a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother raises two issues 

on appeal: 1) whether Indiana Code section 31-34-21-5.6 (“No Reasonable 

Efforts Statute”) is unconstitutional as applied to her, and 2) whether the 

juvenile court abused its discretion in concluding the Department of Child 

Services (“DCS”) need not provide reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and 

Child. Concluding the No Reasonable Efforts Statute is not unconstitutional as 

applied to Mother and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother is the biological parent of ten children. She has an extensive history 

with DCS, including at least thirteen reported instances of child abuse or 

neglect, and her parental rights to two children were previously terminated. In 

addition, we recently affirmed a juvenile court’s adjudication of four of her 

children as CHINS. See Matter of S.G. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 67 N.E.3d 

1138, 1139-44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (providing a detailed factual summary of 

Mother’s history with DCS). There, Mother raised the same two issues she 

raises today.

[3] At thirty-six years old, Mother gave birth to Child, her youngest, on February 

11, 2016. When Mother was admitted to the hospital to give birth, she tested 

positive for cocaine and Child’s umbilical cord also tested positive for cocaine. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-JC-2413 | April 18, 2017 Page 3 of 5

DCS was notified the following day of Mother’s drug test results and removed 

Child from Mother’s care. 

[4] On February 16, 2016, DCS filed a petition alleging Child was a CHINS. On 

April 26, 2016, the guardian ad litem and DCS filed a joint motion requesting 

the juvenile court find DCS need not provide reasonable efforts to reunify 

Mother and Child pursuant to the No Reasonable Efforts Statute, citing the 

termination of Mother’s parental rights to two other children. Following a 

hearing on the motion and a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated 

Child a CHINS and concluded DCS need not provide reasonable efforts to 

reunify Mother and Child. On September 30, 2016, the juvenile court issued its 

dispositional and permanency order, ordering no services be provided to 

Mother and approving adoption as the permanency plan. This appeal ensued. 

Additional facts will be added as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determination that DCS need not 

provide reasonable efforts to reunify her with Child. Generally, DCS is legally 

required to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families once a child 

has been declared a CHINS. Ind. Code § 31-34-21-5.5(b)(2). However, Indiana 

Code section 31-34-21-5.6(b)(4) provides DCS is not required to make 

reasonable efforts if “[t]he parental rights of a parent with respect to a biological 

or adoptive sibling of a child who is a child in need of services have been 

involuntarily terminated by a court . . . .” Here, the juvenile court concluded 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-JC-2413 | April 18, 2017 Page 4 of 5

reasonable efforts are not required because Mother’s parental rights to two 

children were previously involuntarily terminated. 

[6] On appeal, Mother first contends the No Reasonable Efforts Statute is 

unconstitutional as applied to her. 

Whether a statute is constitutional on its face is a question of law, 

which our court reviews de novo. Statutes are clothed in a 

presumption of constitutionality. Thus, an individual 

challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of 

rebutting this presumption. All reasonable doubts must be 

resolved in favor of an act’s constitutionality. When a statute can 

be so construed to support its constitutionality, we must adopt 

such a construction.

Matter of S.G., 67 N.E.3d at 1144 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). However, upon review of Mother’s Appellant’s Brief in both this case 

and in Matter of S.G., see infra, we note the argument sections addressing the 

constitutionality of the statute in each brief are identical. Mother cites to no 

facts or additional authority relevant to Child that would dissuade us from 

applying our decision in Matter of S.G. to the instant case. For this reason, we 

refer to Matter of S.G. and conclude the No Reasonable Efforts Statute is not 

unconstitutional as applied to Mother. Id. at 1144-46. 

[7] Mother also argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in applying the No 

Reasonable Efforts Statute to this case. Again, Mother also raised this issue in 

Matter of S.G. and the arguments in both briefs are vastly similar, each 

contending the evidence shows Mother was and is capable of participating in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-JC-2413 | April 18, 2017 Page 5 of 5

services and reunifying with her children. In addressing this argument in Matter 

of S.G., we concluded Mother’s claim held no merit, reasoning as follows:

Between 1999 and 2016, DCS substantiated at least thirteen 

instances of child abuse or neglect against Mother, which 

resulted in eleven separate CHINS cases involving all of her 

children at various points, as well as the termination of her 

parental rights to two children. . . . We agree with Mother that 

she has previously demonstrated an ability to reunify with her 

children; yet . . . her failure to take advantage of multiple 

opportunities to make permanent changes in her life has resulted 

in a perpetual cycle of instability for all of her children. 

Id. at 1145-46. We see and Mother points out no differences between the 

instant case and Matter of S.G. and we therefore conclude the juvenile court did 

not abuse its discretion in applying the No Reasonable Efforts Statute to the 

instant case. 

Conclusion

[8] We conclude the No Reasonable Efforts Statute is not unconstitutional as 

applied to Mother and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in applying 

the statute to this case. Accordingly, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.