Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2822 | June 22, 2023 Page 1 of 6

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John R. Worman

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In The Matter of L.S., a Child in 

Need of Services,

J.C.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

June 22, 2023

Court of Appeals Case No.

22A-JC-2822

Appeal from the 

Vanderburgh Superior Court

The Honorable 

Brett J. Niemeier, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

82D04-2012-JC-1797

Opinion by Judge Foley

Chief Judge Altice and Judge May concur.

Foley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2822 | June 22, 2023 Page 2 of 6

[1] J.C. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify the

placement for his child, L.S. Father failed, however, to correctly perfect this 

appeal. His notice of appeal indicates that the order denying the modification is 

a final appealable order, which it is not. Father did not seek an interlocutory 

appeal. Thus, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal is 

dismissed. 

Facts and Procedural History1

[2] L.S. was adjudicated a child in need of services (“CHINS”) on December 21, 

2020, after an incident in which another minor child was removed from the 

home of K.S. (“Mother”) where L.S. was living at the time.2 The other child 

required the administration of Narcan3 at the hospital, and Mother tested 

positive for both benzodiazepine4 and THC.5

 

[3] During L.S.’s early life, Father was itinerant, and it was not until December 19, 

2021, after his location was determined to be the Vanderburgh County Jail, that 

1 We offer here only an abbreviated recounting of the facts and procedural history because we find Father’s 

erroneous filing to be dispositive as a jurisdictional matter. Thus, none of the proceedings below prior to the 

filing of the notice of appeal bear on our legal analysis.

2 L.S. was then approximately six months old. 

3 Also known as naloxolone, Narcan “is a medicine that rapidly reverses an opioid overdose.” 

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/naloxone (last accessed May 22, 2023).

4 “Benzodiazepines (sometimes called ‘benzos’) work to calm or sedate a person, by raising the level of the 

inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA in the brain.” https://nida.nih.gov/researchtopics/opioids/benzodiazepines-opioids (last accessed May 22, 2023).

5 Tetrahydrocannabinol is the active psychotropic ingredient in marijuana. 

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/cannabis-marijuana-concentrates (last accessed May 22, 2023).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2822 | June 22, 2023 Page 3 of 6

he was determined to be L.S.’s biological father. Father was subsequently 

convicted of and sentenced on eight felonies ranging from bigamy to domestic 

battery to handgun possession to possession of narcotics.6

[4] L.S.’s paternal grandmother sought to become involved in the CHINS 

proceedings,7 as did L.S.’s foster parents, and the juvenile court set the matter 

for a placement hearing. After the hearing, the juvenile court denied requests 

for L.S. to be placed with his paternal grandmother, concluding that it was in 

the child’s best interest to remain in his foster placement. Father filed a notice 

of appeal on November 23, 2022, alleging that the basis for this court’s 

jurisdiction was that he was seeking appeal from a final judgment as defined by 

Appellate Rule 2(H) and 9(I).

Discussion and Decision 

[5] As a general matter, the appellate courts of Indiana “have jurisdiction only over 

appeals from judgments either disposing of all claims as to all parties, or which 

the trial court certifies as lacking any just reason to delay entering judgment as 

to fewer than all the issues, claims, or parties under Trial Rule 54(B) or Trial 

6 Father will be released, at the earliest, in 2038. The juvenile court’s only dispositional order with respect to 

Father was that he contact the Department of Child Services within twenty-four hours of his release. 

7 It appears from the record that Father made an oral request that L.S. be placed with the paternal 

grandmother during a hearing on September 29, 2022. It also appears that the father of a different child—

related to L.S.—consented to placement of the other child with L.S.’s paternal grandmother, as did both

Mother and Father. There are references to the paternal grandmother requesting placement prior to that 

hearing, but the appendix submitted as part of this appeal does not contain any such formal or written 

request. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2822 | June 22, 2023 Page 4 of 6

Rule 56(C).” Means v. State, 201 N.E.3d 1158, 1163 (Ind. 2023) (citing Ramsey 

v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 251 (Ind. 2012)). Appellate Rule 2(H) provides that:

A judgment is a final judgment if . . . it disposes of all claims as 

to all parties . . . [or] . . . the trial court in writing expressly 

determines under Trial Rule 54(B) . . . that there is no just reason 

for delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment 

. . . under Trial Rule 54(B) as to fewer than all the claims or 

parties.

[6] Ordinarily—and by definition—placement orders by the juvenile court in 

CHINS proceedings are not final judgments. See, e.g., In re D.W., 52 N.E.3d 

839, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (juvenile court’s order which, inter alia, denied a 

motion for placement modification was not a final appealable order); In re K.F., 

797 N.E.2d 310, 314–15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that a permanency plan 

in a CHINS action is not a final judgment). The juvenile court has the statutory 

authority to remove a child that has been adjudicated a CHINS from his or her 

home and place her in the home of another or in a shelter care facility. Ind. 

Code § 31-34-20-1(a)(3). Placement decisions are necessarily continuing (rather 

than final) in nature, which is why they are reviewed every six months. I.C. § 

31-34-21-2.

[7] On the other hand, we have held at least once that we may accept jurisdiction 

over a CHINS action during its pendency via an interlocutory appeal of a 

placement or custody decision in accordance with Appellate Rule 14, the rule 

governing the primary exception to our general rule limiting appellate 

jurisdiction to final orders. E.R. v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 729 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2822 | June 22, 2023 Page 5 of 6

N.E.2d 1052, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“The placement decisions as to all five 

of the children are continuing in nature and are ripe for interlocutory appeal.”).

[8] While we recognize that some circumstances may favor the availability of an 

interlocutory appeal for a placement decision,8 we are concerned that a blanket 

rule allowing interlocutory appeals of any and all placement or custody 

determinations would threaten the principles underlying our jurisdictional rules 

and our deference to family law courts on matters dictated by the delicate 

balance between the best interests of the child and the constitutional rights of 

the parents. Most appeals are filed after a final judgment, and with good 

reason. Indiana Trial Rule 54(B) states in pertinent part:

A judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or 

parties is final when the court in writing expressly determines 

that there is no just reason for delay, and in writing expressly 

directs entry of judgment, and an appeal may be taken upon this 

or other issues resolved by the judgment; but in other cases a 

judgment, decision or order as to less than all the claims and 

parties is not final.

[9] “The purpose of Trial Rule 54(B) is to avoid piecemeal litigation and appeal of 

various issues in a case and to preserve judicial economy by protecting against 

the appeal of orders that are not yet final.” Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 

N.E.3d 753, 757 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted). Expanding our appellate 

jurisdiction to any and all custody or placement decisions made by a CHINS 

8 A scenario in which, for example, the placement of the child would have international implications.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-JC-2822 | June 22, 2023 Page 6 of 6

court may invite a deluge of new appeals, each one with the potential to 

sidestep the interests in judicial economy and expedience upon which both our 

CHINS and jurisdictional jurisprudence are based.9

[10] Having identified this challenging question, however, we now expressly leave 

the matter for another day. Here, Father failed to file his appeal under 

Appellate Rule 14. And the appealed order does not meet the requirements of 

Rule 54 insofar as it does not contain the requisite “magic language[,]” despite 

Father’s notice of appeal purporting to seek relief from a final appealable 

judgment. See, e.g., Indy Auto Man, LLC v. Keown & Kratz, LLC, 84 N.E.3d 718, 

721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citing In re Estate of Botkins, 970 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2012) (holding that an order was not final for purposes of appeal 

absent the “magic language” that there is no just cause for delay and directing 

an entry of a judgment from which appeal may be taken.). Accordingly, we are 

without appellate jurisdiction over this appeal. Id. at 719–20 (citing Front Row 

Motors, LLC, 5 N.E.3d at 757). 

[11] Dismissed. 

Altice, C.J., May, J.

9 Albeit subject to the appealing party complying with the requirements of Appellate Rule 14 and receiving 

permission from both the trial court to file the appeal and this court accepting jurisdiction over said appeal.