Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 1 of 8

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

David K. Payne

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine A. Cornelius

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: K.B., J.K.E., 

J.E., and K.E., Children in 

Need of Services, 

and

A.E. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v. 

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

May 28, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JC-2603 

Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Thomas Alevizos, 

Judge

The Honorable W. Jonathan 

Forker, Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No.

46C01-1806-JC-72 

46C01-1806-JC-73 

46C01-1806-JC-74 

46C01-1806-JC-75 

Tavitas, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] A.E. (“Mother”) appeals the dispositional order concluding that her four 

children are children in need of services (“CHINS”). We remand. 

Analysis 

[2] Mother has four children, ten-year-old K.B., eight-year-old Ja.E., three-year-old 

Jo.E, and one-year-old K.E. (collectively, the “Children”). B.E. (“Father”) is 

the father of Ja.E., Jo.E., and K.E.1

 K.B.’s father did not appear and was not 

involved in the proceedings; his whereabouts are unknown, and he “does not 

currently have legal custody” of K.B. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 11. 

[3] The Children were removed by the Department of Child Services (“DCS”)

while they were staying with their maternal grandmother after allegations that: 

[the Children’s] physical or mental condition is seriously 

impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, 

refusal, or neglect of the [the Children’s] parent, guardian, or 

custodian to supply [the Children] with necessary food, clothing, 

shelter, medical care, education, or supervision; and [the 

Children] need[] care, treatment, or rehabilitation that [the 

Children are] not receiving; and is unlikely to be provided or 

accepted without the coercive intervention of the Court. 

Id. at 10, 13, 14.2

 In June 2018, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children 

are CHINS, and a fact finding hearing was held on September 5, 2018. The 

 

1 Father does not participate in this appeal. 

2 The allegations are the same for each child. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 3 of 8

trial court’s order on the fact finding3 hearing merely states, “[t]hrough fact 

finding, [t]he Court now finds that the child, [] is a Child in Need of Services as 

defined by 31-34-1-1.” Id. at 19. After the trial court found the Children were 

CHINS, a dispositional hearing was held on September 26, 2018, and a 

separate dispositional order was issued. 

[4] Mother raises several issues with regard to the finding that the Children were 

CHINS. We, however, find it necessary to remand to the trial court based on 

the trial court’s lack of written findings of fact and conclusions of law.4

 The 

trial court’s dispositional order5 merely states: 

The CHINS petition comes on for a Dispositional Hearing. 

A factual basis was established. 

The child having been found to be a Child in Need of 

Services the Court, after reviewing the Predispositional 

Report(s) and hearing statements and evidence presented 

to the Court regarding the disposition of this cause, finds: 

 

3 The trial court entered a specific order with respect to K.B., and a separate order with respect to Ja.E., 

Jo.E., and K.E., collectively. We cite from K.B.’s order; however, the orders are mostly similar in all 

respects. 

4 We note that the trial court did orally state the basis for its findings that the Children were CHINS; 

however, the statute requires “written” findings and conclusions. Ind. Code § 31-34-19-10(a). 

5 The trial court entered a specific order with respect to K.B., and a separate order with respect to Ja.E., 

Jo.E., and K.E., collectively. We cite from K.B.’s order; however, the orders are mostly similar in all 

respects. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 4 of 8

The needs of the child for care, treatment, or rehabilitation 

are: A safe, stable home environment. 

Participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the 

plan for the child is necessary to: Provide a safe, stable 

home environment. 

Based on the information presented in the Predispositional 

Report(s) and provided at the hearing, the Court makes the 

following dispositional orders: 

The child shall remain in her current home or placement, 

with supervision by DCS. 

[DCS] is awarded wardship of the children, with 

responsibility for supervision, care and placement. The 

rights and obligation of the person granted wardship in this 

case as defined by I.C. 31-9-134.5 are hereby modified to 

conform to the terms of this Dispositional Decree and the 

Parent Participation Plan ordered herein. DCS is 

authorized to consent to the children’s medical care. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 21-22. The trial court also ordered Mother and 

Father to take part in certain services. 

[5] Indiana Code Section 31-34-19-10 states, 

(a) The juvenile court shall accompany the court’s dispositional 

decree with written findings and conclusions upon the record 

concerning the following:

(1) The needs of the child for care, treatment, 

rehabilitation, or placement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 5 of 8

(2) The need for participation by the parent, guardian, or 

custodian in the plan of care for the child.

(3) Efforts made, if the child is a child in need of services, 

to:

(A) prevent the child’s removal from; or

(B) reunite the child with;

the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian in accordance 

with federal law.

(4) Family services that were offered and provided to:

(A) a child in need of services; or

(B) the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian;

in accordance with federal law.

(5) The court’s reasons for the disposition.

(6) Whether the child is a dual status child under IC 31-41.

(b) The juvenile court may incorporate a finding or conclusion 

from a predispositional report as a written finding or conclusion 

upon the record in the court's dispositional decree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 6 of 8

[6] Several required findings and conclusions that should have been included in the 

trial court’s order, pursuant to the statute, were not included. In CHINS cases, 

written findings and conclusions are crucial, because 

Indiana Code § 31-34-19-10(5) requires that the trial court give 

reasons for its disposition in a CHINS proceeding. Specifically, 

we are concerned that procedural irregularities, like an absence of 

clear findings of fact, in a CHINS proceeding may be of such 

import that they deprive a parent of procedural due process with 

respect to a potential subsequent termination of parental rights. . . 

. Our legislature’s enactment of an interlocking statutory scheme 

governing CHINS and involuntary termination of parental rights 

compels this court to make sure that each procedure is conducted

in accordance with the law. 

In re J.Q., 836 N.E.2d 961, 966-67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh’g denied (citations 

omitted). 

[7] While the failure to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on a 

dispositional order is not always reversible error, this does not appear to be one 

of those cases. In In re T.S., 881 N.E.2d 1110, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), a 

panel of this court found that, although the court’s written findings in a CHINS 

dispositional order “consist[ed] predominantly of boilerplate language that 

would not be helpful to a reviewing court and, therefore, generally would not be 

sufficient to permit appellate review,” there were “few, if any, factual questions 

for the court to resolve.” Specifically, this court found that, because the probate 

court “had committed Mother indefinitely to inpatient mental health 

treatment,” and the mother “presumably could not take [the child] . . . with her, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 7 of 8

Mother was unavailable to care for him, and no services the State might offer 

would decrease the need for someone besides Mother to care for [the Child].” 

T.S., 881 N.E.2d at 1113; see also McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family and 

Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding that the 

dispositional order “as a whole” met the statutory requirement because the trial 

court “expressly incorporated OFC’s Juvenile Predispositional Report and SixMonth Periodic Review Report and adopted OFC’s recommendations 

contained in that report,” into the dispositional order, and that “OFC’s report 

contains fifteen pages of family history, background, and placement options for 

the children”). 

[8] Here, the trial court did not incorporate prior records or the predispositional 

report in its dispositional order. Further, the dispositional order did not include 

the necessary findings on all the required relevant statutory subsections. Unlike 

T.S., this case required factual findings for the trial court to determine, which 

the trial court failed to do. The lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law 

has impeded our review. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter 

written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Indiana Code 

Section 31-34-19-10. 

Conclusion

[9] We remand for the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law 

consistent with Indiana Code Section 31-34-19-10. 

[10] Remanded. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-2603 | May 28, 2019 Page 8 of 8

Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.