IN RE: IN RE: a Child in Need of Services: B.G. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

[1] B.G. (Child) has filed a petition for rehearing from this court's memorandum decision wherein we dismissed Child's appeal as moot. We grant the petition for rehearing to correct a misstatement of facts in our analysis but reaffirm the dismissal of Child's appeal.

[2] On appeal, Child invoked the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine in arguing that her challenge to her placement in the IMPACT program prior to her CHINS adjudication was not moot. “Cases falling within the public interest exception [to the mootness doctrine] typically contain issues likely to recur.” Matter of A.C., 198 N.E.3d 1, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. We found that the circumstances of the case were not likely to recur, in part, because “Child desired to have the entirety of the evidence heard anew.” B.D.G., slip op. at 11, ¶23. Child correctly points out that following a change of judge, it was Mother who requested that the fact-finding hearing be heard anew, resulting in a delay of the fact-finding hearing.

[3] Nevertheless, even without reliance on such misstatement, we still find that the circumstances of the case are not likely to recur. As we noted, Child's age and behavior, including that she ran away from her foster placement, made placement in a foster home difficult. This, coupled with “the unfortunate timing of a change in judge,” were the impetus for Child's placement in the IMPACT program and subsequent delay in the CHINS proceedings. Id. We also reiterate that Child was twice heard by the trial court regarding her objection to her placement in the IMPACT program and in both instances, her request for a change in placement was denied. Further, Child did not challenge her continued placement in the IMPACT program following the CHINS fact-finding hearing.

[4] We alter our previous opinion to correct a misstatement of fact but otherwise affirm our dismissal of Child's appeal as moot.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.