IN RE: Rh.T. and Ri.T. (Minor Children) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Ri.T. and Rh.T. (collectively, the “Children”) are the biological children of R.T. (“Father”) and A.O. (“Mother”). The Children were removed from Father and Mother's care after Rh.T. tested positive for Subutex at birth and a used needle and Narcan package were found in Mother's hospital room, among other issues. The Children were subsequently adjudicated children in need of services (“CHINS”). Father now appeals ¹ and raises one issue for our review: Whether the Children's initial removal violated Father's due process rights.

[2] Because we conclude that Father's appeal is moot without exception, we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On November 11, 2024, when Ri.T. was one year old ² and Rh.T. was just ten days old ³ , the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed them from Father and Mother (collectively, “Parents”). At that time, Rh.T. was still in the hospital being treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which was caused by Mother's prescribed use of Subutex while pregnant with him. In a drug screen administered on November 11, Mother tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and buprenorphine; she only had a prescription for the buprenorphine. Father refused to do a drug screen. Both Parents have prior drug-related criminal convictions. Additionally, while Mother was still in the hospital, a used hypodermic needle and Narcan package had been found in the bathroom of her hospital room; she and Father had both engaged in unsafe sleep practices with Rh.T.; and on one occasion, hospital staff had to ask Father to be quiet after he started yelling and cussing at Mother.

[4] On November 13, DCS filed a petition alleging the Children were CHINS based on these issues and Parents’ histories of substance abuse. At 2:30 p.m. the same day, the trial court held an initial hearing and a detention hearing. On November 18, the trial court issued an order (the “Initial Removal Order”) in which it authorized the Children's continued removal from Parents. In early January 2025, the trial court adjudicated the Children as CHINS, and later that month, the trial court issued a dispositional order (the “Dispositional Order”) in which it authorized the Children's continued removal from Parents. Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Father's Appeal of the Initial Removal Order Is Moot Without Exception

[5] On appeal, Father does not challenge the CHINS adjudications or the Dispositional Order; instead, Father challenges the Initial Removal Order, arguing the trial court's continued removal decision was not based on evidence but on a summary presentation. However, DCS asserts, and we agree, that the trial court's subsequent adjudication of the Children as CHINS and its issuance of the Dispositional Order renders Father's appeal of the Initial Removal Order moot.

[6] “A case is moot when the controversy at issue has been ended, settled, or otherwise disposed of so that the court can give the parties no effective relief.” E.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 188 N.E.3d 464, 466 (Ind. 2022) (citing T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019), reh'g denied); see also J.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 256 N.E.3d 1260, 1264 (Ind. 2025) (citing T.W., 121 N.E.3d at 1042) (holding an appeal is moot “when the appellate court cannot provide either party with effective relief”). When a case is moot, it will be dismissed. T.W., 121 N.E.3d at 1042 (citing In re Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)).

[7] Here, no relief is available to Father due to any alleged error in the Initial Removal Order because the Children's continued removal is no longer based on the Initial Removal Order but instead on the Dispositional Order. See In re A.C., 198 N.E.3d 1, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (determining no relief available for parents who challenged child's continued removal based on the first removal order when a dispositional order had been issued). Effective relief regarding the Children's continued removal from Parents’ care, if warranted, may be granted based on an appeal of the CHINS adjudication, Dispositional Order, or both. See id. Accordingly, Father's challenge to the Initial Removal Order is moot.

[8] We recognize that the mootness doctrine is not without exception, see generally J.F., 256 N.E.3d 1260, but Father does not argue that any exceptions apply in this case. Father's appeal of the Initial Removal Order is therefore moot without exception, and we dismiss this appeal.

[9] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Ri.T. was born on May 18, 2023.

3.   Rh.T. was born on November 1, 2024.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Tavitas concur. Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.