## Facts

- Mother filed a paternity action in Delaware Circuit Court regarding T.D., born in October 1996.
- In September 1998, Father stipulated to paternity, and the parties agreed that Mother would have custody.
- In June 1998, a juvenile-court CHINS petition was filed alleging T.D. was a child in need of services.
- T.D. was removed from Mother’s home based on allegations including failure to thrive, lack of supervision, and verbal abuse.
- In November 2000, the juvenile court temporarily placed T.D. with Father and later issued an order permanently placing T.D. with Father.
- In August 2001, while the CHINS matter was still pending, Father filed in the paternity court a petition to change custody.
- The paternity court granted Father temporary custody (September 2002) and, after trial (November 2002 and January 2003), awarded Father permanent custody.
- Mother appealed, arguing the paternity court lacked jurisdiction to modify custody during the pending CHINS case.

## Issues

1. Whether a court with paternity jurisdiction may modify custody while a CHINS proceeding involving the same child is pending in juvenile court.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the paternity court’s custody-modification order.
- Indiana Code § 31-30-1-13 gives a court with paternity jurisdiction concurrent original jurisdiction with the juvenile court over custody matters involving a child who is the subject of a CHINS proceeding.
- Because jurisdiction existed by statute, the paternity court’s order was not void for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court noted that implementation of a custody change may depend on the juvenile court’s CHINS orders and case status, but that did not defeat the paternity court’s authority to enter its custody order.

## Legal Principles

- Jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
- Under Ind. Code § 31-30-1-13 (effective July 1, 1999), a court with paternity jurisdiction has concurrent original jurisdiction with the juvenile court over custody proceedings concerning a child who is the subject of a CHINS proceeding.
- Earlier authority suggesting exclusive juvenile-court custody jurisdiction during a CHINS case does not control when superseded by Ind. Code § 31-30-1-13.
- A custody order entered by a paternity court exercising concurrent jurisdiction is not void merely because a CHINS case is pending in juvenile court.

## Conclusion

The court held that, by statute, the paternity court retained concurrent original jurisdiction to modify custody despite an ongoing CHINS proceeding, and it affirmed the order granting Father permanent custody.


Reynolds v. Dewees, 797 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)