Indiana Supreme Court flags child’s need for counsel in CHINS cases

In Matter of E.K., 2025 WL 1711025 (Ind. 2025), a mother whose child was violent towards her and the child’s siblings petitioned to have their child declared a Child In Need of Services (CHINS).  The trial court denied the petition, instead agreeing with the State that the basis for CHINS should be the neglect of the mother.  The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, and in sending the case back to the trial court for further consideration of the proper CHINS category, it expressed concern over the child’s lack of counsel (especially given that some of the allegations were against the child) and encouraged the trial court to consider appointing counsel under I.C. 31-32-4-2:

Amending certain CHINS categories under Trial Rule 15(B) at fact-finding becomes complicated when the child is excluded from the hearing or unrepresented by counsel. Such a child can neither meaningfully consent to nor object to trying issues outside the pleadings … the trial court must also identify whether the amendment implicates … the categories requiring the child to admit or deny the allegations. If so, the court should ensure, when appropriate, that the child receives this opportunity and that the amendment does not prejudice their defense under these categories. The court should also determine, based on any new allegations, whether the child’s participation in the hearing and the appointment of counsel are appropriate. And when facing CHINS 3.5 or 6 allegations [endangering himself or others], a child will need the assistance of counsel to meaningfully respond … Thus, the best practice is for the court and counsel on all sides to determine at the earliest opportunity whether any party might request adjudication under an alternative CHINS category.