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

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

Victoria L. Bailey

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.C.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

September 6, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1704-JC-804

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge

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 2 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 3 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 4 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.