Vaidik, C.J.
Case Summary
J.J. (Mother) and G.B. (Father) shared custody of their children pursuant to a paternity court’s custody order. When Mother, high on methamphetamine, got into a car accident with the children, the Indiana Department of Child Services placed the children with Father and filed a petition alleging that the children were in need of services. After Mother and Father admitted that the children were CHINS, the juvenile court entered an order that modified custody of the children pursuant to the custody-modification statutes—giving Father full custody and Mother supervised parenting time—and discharged the parties.
While the juvenile court could enter a dispositional decree that removed the children from Mother and authorized DCS to place them with Father, as soon as the court discharged the parties, it lost jurisdiction. At this point, jurisdiction reverted to the paternity court, where the paternity court’s joint custody order controlled. We therefore reverse and remand.
….
Mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to modify custody of the children in the CHINS case. Juvenile courts have “exclusive original jurisdiction” over CHINS cases filed under Indiana Code article 31-34, except as provided in Indiana Code section 31-30-1-13. Ind. Code § 31-30-1-1. [Footnote omitted.] Section 31-30-1-13(a), in turn, provides that a trial court that has jurisdiction of a child-custody proceeding in a paternity case has “concurrent original jurisdiction” with a CHINS court for purposes of modifying that child’s custody. [Footnote omitted.] In other words, Section 31-30-1-13 extends custodial decision-making to paternity courts during the pendency of CHINS proceedings. Reynolds v. Dewees, 797 N.E.2d 798, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); see also In re M.B., No. 65S04-1604-MI-180 (Ind. Apr. 12, 2016) (addressing a trial court’s jurisdiction in an independent action for custody when a CHINS case is pending in juvenile court).
….
“When the juvenile court finds that the objectives of the dispositional decree have been met, the court shall discharge the child and the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian.” Ind. Code § 31-34-21-11. The juvenile court’s jurisdiction over a CHINS and over the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian ends when the court discharges the child and the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian. Ind. Code § 31-30-2-1(a)(1).
While the juvenile court could enter a dispositional decree that removed the children from Mother and authorized DCS to place them with Father, as soon as the juvenile court discharged the parties, it lost jurisdiction. This meant that the CHINS court no longer had concurrent jurisdiction, and jurisdiction reverted to the paternity court, where the paternity court’s joint custody order controlled. But because it appears that the juvenile court would not have discharged the parties and terminated the CHINS case had it not thought that Father was getting full custody, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.