Barnes, J.
Case Summary
T.W. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her visitation with D.W. and denying her motion to modify the permanency plan in a CHINS action. We dismiss.
Issue
We address one dispositive issue, which we restate as whether the trial court’s order is a final judgment.
….
In January 2014, Mother filed a motion for modification of the permanency plan, for reinstatement of her visitation, and for a bonding assessment. After multiple hearings on pending issues, including Mother’s motion for modification, the trial court entered an order in June 2015 denying Mother’s motion to modify the permanency plan, granting DCS’s motion to discontinue visitation, ordering that all parenting time between Mother and D.W. cease, and ordering counsel to coordinate with the trial court regarding a hearing on DCS’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. [Footnote omitted.]
In July 2015, Mother filed a notice of appeal and indicated that the appeal was interlocutory pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B)(3). Mother amended her notice of appeal in September 2015 and indicated that she was appealing a final judgment.
….
The trial court’s order, however, does not meet any of these [final judgment] qualifications. In fact, we have held under similar circumstances that such orders are not final appealable judgments. See In re K.F., 797 N.E.2d 310, 314-15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)(holding that a permanency plan in a CHINS action is not a final judgment).
….
…Because the trial court’s order is not a final judgment, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over Mother’s appeal. See Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 253-54 (Ind. 2012) (holding that our supreme court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where the appealed order was not a final judgment). We dismiss this appeal.
Conclusion
We dismiss Mother’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dismissed. Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.