Crone, J.
The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) has filed a petition for rehearing of our opinion in Matter of S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We grant the petition for the limited purpose of dispelling DCS’s misconceptions about our opinion and reaffirm our original decision in all respects.
….
DCS also contends that our opinion “creates confusion and is being interpreted as meaning that a juvenile court must wait until both parents … appear in court at the same time and hears the matter in its entirety at the same time.” Appellee’s Petition for Reh’g at 5. Our opinion does not say (and should not be interpreted as saying) any such thing. Rather, as Father states, it simply stands for the proposition that “[w]hen the [CHINS] adjudication can involve both parents at the same time, it should involve both parents at the same time so there is one adjudication as to all facts pertaining to the entire matter.” Appellant’s Response at 6 (emphases added). [Footnote omitted.] If multiple hearings are unavoidable, then the trial court should, if at all possible, refrain from adjudicating the child a CHINS until evidence has been heard from both parents. And if an adjudication is unavoidable before evidence has been heard from the second parent, then the trial court must give meaningful consideration to the evidence provided by the second parent in determining whether the child remains a CHINS.
With these clarifications, we hereby reaffirm our original decision in all respects.
Mathias, J., concurs.
Riley, J., would deny petition for rehearing