Court Opinion

ID: 9897362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:38.358965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:35.333606
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Jun 22 2023, 8:44 am

                                                                           CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John R. Worman                                              Theodore E. Rokita
Evansville, Indiana                                         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                           June 22, 2023
Need of Services,                                           Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                            22A-JC-2822
J.C.,
                                                            Appeal from the
Appellant-Respondent,                                       Vanderburgh Superior Court
        v.                                                  The Honorable
                                                            Brett J. Niemeier, Judge
Indiana Department of Child                                 Trial Court Cause No.
Services,                                                   82D04-2012-JC-1797

Appellee-Petitioner.

                                 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 1 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 History 1
[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 Narcan 3 at the hospital, and Mother tested

      positive for both benzodiazepine 4 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/research-
      topics/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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.

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