Kenworthy, J.
A.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order appointing permanent guardians for two of her daughters after the court adjudicated them Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”) due to educational neglect. The trial court entered the guardianship order in the absence of a petition for guardianship and notice to Mother required by statute, then closed the CHINS proceedings. We find Mother did not receive due process of law, and so we reverse the guardianship and CHINS dismissal orders and remand for further proceedings.
…..
Here, the trial court opened a guardianship matter without a petition for guardianship and without notice of the petition and hearing being given under the guardianship statutes. Because Indiana Code Section 31-34-21-7.7(a) refers only to “appointing” and “administering” a guardianship, DCS argues “the trial court reasonably read [the statute] to give authority to open a guardianship case independent of the specific requirements of the guardianship statutes.” Appellee’s Br. at 16–17. In other words, DCS suggests a trial court presiding over a CHINS case in which the permanency plan calls for guardianship may “open” the guardianship in the absence of a guardianship petition and notice.
We disagree with DCS’s reading of the statute. Under its interpretation, a trial court would bypass the provisions of Indiana Code Section 29-3-5-1 (filing of the petition; notice and hearing) and move directly to Section 29-3-5-3 (findings; appointment of guardian). But Indiana Code Section 31-34-21-7.7(a) incorporates by reference all of Article 29-3, not just those provisions dealing with appointment and administration of guardianships. Under the probate code, a trial court cannot appoint a permanent guardian until it has held a hearing, and it cannot hold a hearing until a petition has been filed and notice of the petition and hearing is given to interested parties. When we “consider the structure of the statute as a whole,” ESPN, 62 N.E.3d at 1195, it is apparent the filing of a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are statutory prerequisites for appointment of a permanent guardian of a minor. [Footnote omitted.]
….
In sum, when the permanency plan for a child adjudicated a CHINS provides for appointment of a guardian under Indiana Code Section 31-34-21-7.7, the filing of a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are statutory prerequisites for appointment of a permanent guardian. [Footnote omitted.]
….
Conclusion
When a CHINS permanency plan calls for appointment of a permanent guardian of the minor, a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are required before the guardian is appointed. In this case, because no guardianship petition was filed and Mother did not receive notice of the petition and hearing required under the probate code, we reverse the guardianship order. And because the trial court’s order dismissing the CHINS depended on achieving permanency, we reverse the wardship termination and CHINS dismissal order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.