By Lindsay Faulkenberg, Kids' Voice of Indiana
Recently, I’ve heard and participated in some discussion about what the holding in a recent Court of Appeals decision means with regards to a CHINS order surviving the closure of the CHINS case. The Court of Appeals issued a decision in In Re J.B. in June, and then later issued an opinion on rehearing in September. Some lawyers read the Court’s decision as stating that a CHINS order does not survive the closing of a CHINS case. This holding would be contrary to I.C. 31-30-1-12 and I.C. 31-30-1-13. However, the facts of the case alter this reading of the J.B. opinion; in J.B., the CHINS Court closed the case without entering a dispositional decree, and consequently, there was no order to survive the closure of the case. Based on this strict reading of the facts, I do not believe this holding in any way modifies I.C. 31-30-1-12 and I.C. 31-30-1-13. The Court clearly believes that the legislature needs to take a closer look at what was intended by both statutes. There is a lengthy discussion in the opinion about what an order “establishing or modifying paternity” means, and contrasts the paternity jurisdiction statute (I.C. 31-30-1-13) with the dissolution jurisdiction statute (I.C. 31-30-1-12). Read case summaries of both decisions in the PDFs below.
View the original decision here.
View the opinion on the rehearing here.
If you would like to submit content or write an article for the Family Law Section page, please email Kara Sikorski at email@example.com.