United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
JOSEPH LOZANO, JR., B.L. b/n/f JOSEPH LOZANO, JR., O.L. b/n/f JOSEPH LOZANO, JR., and T.L. b/n/f JOSEPH LOZANO, JR., Plaintiffs,
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, STATE OF INDIANA, SHAWNA M. SMITH, KATHRYN DEARDORFF, RACHEL GIBSON, TINA DINGMAN, NICOLE MARKELY, LOUELLA F. RICHEY, TERRANCE CIBOCH, NATHAN JOHNSON, and JAMES WIDE, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment
[DE 38], filed by Defendants Indiana Department of Child
Services, State of Indiana, Shawna M. Smith, Kathryn
Deardorff,  Rachel Gibson, Tina Dingman, Nicole
Markely, Louella F. Richey, Terrance Ciboch, Nathan Johnson,
and James Wide on July 10, 2017. Plaintiffs Joseph Lozano,
Jr., B.L. b/n/f Joseph Lozano, Jr., O.L. b/n/f Joseph Lozano,
Jr., and T.L. b/n/f Joseph Lozano, Jr. filed a response on
October 6, 2017, and Defendants filed a reply on October 20,
filed their Complaint in the Porter County, Indiana, Superior
Court on October 23, 2015. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
violated Plaintiffs' civil rights, bringing claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the denial of a parent's right
to establish a home and raise his children pursuant to the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; for a
violation of Plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due
process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution; for a violation of the
Plaintiffs' right to be free from unreasonable seizure
pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution; for deprivation of equal protection and due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution by failing to comply with applicable
state and federal statutes and regulations; and for
deprivation of the right to petition the government pursuant
to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
addition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their
statutory duties under Indiana Code § 31-33-1-1, et seq.
as well as state and federal statutes and regulations
designed to protect families and children, including but not
limited to 42 U.S.C. § 5106, 42 U.S.C. §
671(a)(15), 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. §
675(5), and “C.F.R. 1356.21, ” implemented under
Indiana Code ¶ 31-34-1-1. Also under state law,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to use ordinary and
reasonable care in connection with their interactions with
November 30, 2015, Defendants removed the case to this Court.
The parties orally agreed on the record to have this case
assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all
further proceedings and to order the entry of a final
judgment in this case. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction
to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a motion for
summary judgment be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Rule 56 “mandates the entry of
summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon
motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “Summary
judgment is appropriate when no material fact is disputed and
the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law, meaning that no reasonable jury could find for the other
party based on the evidence in the record.” Carman
v. Tinkes, 762 F.3d 565, 566 (7th Cir. 2014).
seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of
informing the court of the basis for its motion and
identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (a), (c). The
moving party may discharge its initial responsibility by
simply “‘showing'-that is, pointing out to
the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; see also Spierer v.
Rossman, 798 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2015). When the
nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the
moving party is not required to support its motion with
affidavits or other similar materials negating the
opponent's claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 325;
Spierer, 798 F.3d at 507-08; Modrowski v.
Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1168-69 (7th Cir. 2013).
the moving party puts forth evidence showing the absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the
non-moving party to provide evidence of specific facts
creating a genuine dispute.” Carroll v. Lynch,
698 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2012). The non-moving party
cannot resist the motion and withstand summary judgment by
merely resting on its pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1), (e); Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d
764, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The nonmoving
party must “do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)
(1986)). Rule 56(e) provides that “[i]f a party fails
to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly
address another party's assertion of fact as required by
Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed
for purposes of the motion [or] grant summary judgment if the
motion and supporting materials-including the facts
considered undisputed-show that the movant is entitled to it
. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-50.
viewing the facts presented on a motion for summary judgment,
a court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to
the non-moving party and draw all legitimate inferences in
favor of that party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255;
McDowell v. Vill. of Lansing, 763 F.3d 762, 764, 765
(7th Cir. 2014); Srail v. Vill. of Lisle, 588 F.3d
940, 948 (7th Cir. 2009). A court's role is not to
evaluate the weight of the evidence, to judge the credibility
of witnesses, or to determine the truth of the matter, but
instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of
triable fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50.
Joseph and Elizabeth Lozano's Relationship
August 2007, Joseph Lozano, Jr. and Elizabeth met on
Facebook. (Joseph Dep. 7:6-17.) On the second night that they
were dating, Elizabeth moved in with Joseph into his
parents' house, where Joseph's parents, three
nephews, and sister lived. (Joseph Dep. 7:20-25, 8:23-9:13).
and Elizabeth had three children together. O.L. was born was
born in 2008. (Joseph Dep. 8:12-15). Joseph and Elizabeth
married the next month. (Joseph Dep. 8:6-11). In September
2008, Joseph and Elizabeth moved into their mobile home.
(Joseph Dep. 10:17-23). In 2009, B.L. was born. (Joseph Dep.
13:22-23). In late 2009, Joseph, Elizabeth, O.L., and B.L.
moved back into Joseph's parents' house. (Joseph Dep.
14:11-16). In 2011, T.L. was born. (Joseph Dep. 16:11-12).
March 13, 2012, a report was made to DCS that Elizabeth took
the children to Wisconsin and did not return. (Ex. Z). On May
10, 2012, a report was made to DCS concerning O.L. living
with her grandfather and a previous unsubstantiated report of
sexual abuse in Wisconsin. (Ex. AA).
January 2013, Joseph, Elizabeth, and the children stayed in
an EconoLodge. (Ex. V -DCS000009). On January 21, 2013, a
report was made to DCS that Elizabeth drinks and takes drugs,
that Joseph takes drugs, and that the children were left
unattended. (Ex. BB). While living at the EconoLodge, Joseph
and Elizabeth were investigated by DCS for neglect. (Ex. V -
DCS000009-11). Among other things, the report source claimed
that Joseph used the drug “triple c.” (Ex. V
-DCS000009; Ex. BB - DCS000044). The allegations of neglect
were unsubstantiated, although Joseph tested positive for
THC. (Ex. V - DCS000010; Joseph Dep. 78-79: 24-5).
was incarcerated from April 2013 to August 2013. (Joseph Dep.
17:6-12). Before Joseph went to jail, Joseph's mother,
Paula Lozano, had not made any reports to the Indiana
Department of Child Services (“DCS”) about the
children. (Paula Dep. 13:5-13). While Joseph was
incarcerated, Elizabeth obtained government-assisted housing
in Valparaiso. (Joseph Dep. 16:23-17:5, 21:16-17, 22:4-12).
On August 8, 2013, Joseph was released from jail and moved
into the apartment with Elizabeth. (Joseph Dep.23:17-24:1).
Joseph never saw Elizabeth abuse the children. (Joseph Dep.
29:17-24). When living with Elizabeth after getting out of
jail, Joseph never saw Elizabeth abuse the children in any
way. (Joseph Dep. 85:9-15). Joseph never notified DCS that
Elizabeth was abusing the children. (Joseph Dep. 85:13-15).
Joseph testified that, in mid-September, Elizabeth
“kicked [him] out” of the apartment. (Joseph Dep.
after, Elizabeth obtained Orders of Protection for herself
against Joseph, each of his parents, and Crystal. (Joseph
Dep. 27:12-16, 27:21-25; Paula Dep. 29:12-13, 30:6-19,
48:2-14; Ex. G-J). The Order of Protection against Joseph
lists O.L., B.L., and T.L. as “Protected
Persons.” (Ex. G).
Elizabeth made Joseph leave the apartment, Paula called the
DCS hotline many times. (Paula Dep. 25:4-11). Joseph never
saw Elizabeth abuse the children. (Joseph Dep. 29:17-24). As
far as Joseph knows, DCS investigated the allegations.
(Joseph Dep. 89:5-12).
Valparaiso Police Department Investigates Paula's
Accusations of Abuse
September 25, 2013, Paula met with Officer Pederson of the
Valparaiso Police Department and made a complaint regarding
suspected child abuse by Elizabeth. (Paula Dep. 31:14-15,
32:6-21; Ex. S - DCS000279). The same date, Officer Pederson
conducted a wellness check, but did not see any signs of
bruising and reported that the children looked okay. (Joseph
Dep. 89:9-18; Paula Dep. 33:1-9; Ex. W - DCS 000014; Ex. S -
FCM Shawna Smith Investigates Reports Made to DCS
September 25, 2013, DCS received a report alleging O.L. was
the victim of physical abuse, including bruises on her face
and arm; that T.L. had a diaper rash and a bruise on his leg;
that Elizabeth's apartment was a mess; and that Elizabeth
had gotten a restraining order “on all of them.”
(Smith Aff. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. W - DCS 000013; Ex. CC -
DCS000047-48). On September 26, 2013, Family Case Manager
(“FCM”) Shawna Smith met with O.L. at O.L.'s
elementary school. (Smith Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. W - DCS
000014). O.L. appeared healthy and was appropriately dressed.
Id. O.L. stated that both parents spanked her on her
butt when she got in trouble. Id. O.L. denied being
scared of Elizabeth or having been harmed by Elizabeth in any
way. Id. O.L. had a “very small circular
mark” on the right side of her face. Id. O.L.
denied anyone hitting her. Id. O.L. stated that
Elizabeth cleaned O.L.'s room every day. Id.
September 27, 2013, FCM Smith made a scheduled home visit to
Elizabeth's apartment. (Smith Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex.
W - DCS 000014). There was not any alcohol in the apartment,
and Elizabeth did not appear to be under the influence.
Id. Smith was told that Elizabeth was not allowed to
drink under the terms of her probation. Id. Smith
found the home very neat and tidy, well above the minimum
sufficient level of care, and there was nothing endangering
to the health and safety of the children. Id. Smith
noted that there were ample amounts of food and supplies and
that all household utilities appeared to be in safe operating
appeared healthy, was appropriately dressed, and did not have
any bruises or obvious signs of injuries at the time of the
interview. Id. B.L. stated that when he was punished
he was put in “time out” or is spanked.
Id. Smith asked B.L. if he ever got hurt after being
spanked, to which B.L. said no. Id. B.L. denied that
his brother or sister had been hurt after being spanked.
Id. B.L. denied being scared of his mother or anyone
who comes to visit the home. Id.
was unable to interview T.L. due to his age. (Smith Aff.
¶ ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. W - DCS 000014). However, T.L.
appeared healthy and appropriately dressed and did not have
any injuries or obvious signs of injury. Id. Smith
reached the following conclusions:
Physical abuse (bruises/cuts/welts) against Elizabeth Lozano
in regards to O.L. will be unsubstantiated as there is a lack
of a preponderance of evidence to support the allegations are
true. O.L. did not have any injuries and denied being
physically abused by her mother. The children all report
receiving age appropriate discipline and deny a history of
receiving injuries as a result of physical discipline. FCM
found nothing in the home to be endangering to the health and
safety of the children.
(Smith Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. W - DCS 000015).
September 28, 2013, DCS received a report that Elizabeth
drinks, takes pills, and is violent and that the children
were left alone but not overnight. (Ex. DD).
October 3, 2013, FCM Smith met with Joseph at the DCS office.
(Smith Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. W - DCS 000014). According
to Smith, she advised Joseph of the allegations, the reasons
for the current DCS assessment, and the outcome of that
assessment; Joseph denied any concern for the safety of his
children when describing his observations of the home; Joseph
denied that Elizabeth's alcohol consumption has ever
endangered the safety of the children; Joseph also denied any
knowledge of Elizabeth currently drinking; and Joseph was
advised that if he had any future concerns for his children
he could contact DCS or contact law enforcement to request a
wellness check of the children. Id. In his
deposition, Joseph testified that Smith told him, “Stop
having your friends and family call about child abuse.”
(Joseph Dep., 88:25-89:4).
FCM Deardorff Investigates Reports Made to DCS
October 8, 2013 DCS received a report that Elizabeth was
leaving the children by themselves and locking them in the
apartment; that Elizabeth abused the children in the past,
with T.L. having welts on his legs and B.L. having a black
eye, and that these incidents were reported to DCS; that
Elizabeth is an alcoholic; and that Elizabeth was using drugs
and was mentally abusing the children by keeping the children
away from their family. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex.
October 10, 2013, FCM Deardorff made an unannounced visit to
Elizabeth's home. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X
- DCS000018). Deardorff observed that Elizabeth did not
appear to be under the influence of anything and that there
did not appear to be any alcohol containers in the home.
Id. Elizabeth admitted that she did have a drinking
problem but that she had been sober since April 2013 because
she made the decision that her children were more important.
Id. Elizabeth also denied using any type of
non-prescribed pills and reported that she was no longer
taking Xanax. Id. Elizabeth adamantly denied that
she left the children unattended, stating that the only time
the children are left alone is for 1-2 minutes when she might
walk over to the neighbor's house to borrow something.
Id. Elizabeth also had a probation officer and was
attending two classes a week for Housing Opportunities in
order to keep her family in their home. Id.
Elizabeth stated that on October 31, 2013, she and her
children would be moving into the Caring Place, at the
recommendation of her Housing Opportunities worker.
October 15, 2013, FCM Deardorff conducted an announced home
visit. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X - DCS000018).
Present was Elizabeth, O.L, B.L., T.L., and Ann Baas,
Elizabeth's caseworker from the Family Youth Service
Bureau. Id. Deardorff noted that B.L. had a scrape
on the top right side of his forehead and a small bruise on
the outside of his right ear. Id. Elizabeth stated
that B.L. had recently thrown himself down on the concrete
and had also been hitting himself when he becomes angry.
Id. Baas informed Deardorff that there were issues
regarding B.L.'s behavior and that Baas was making a
referral for B.L. to see a therapist to see if something was
going on emotionally. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X
- DCS000019). Deardorff asked O.L. what happened to B.L., and
O.L. stated that B.L. “hits himself.”
Id. Deardorff noted that B.L. had a t-shirt on and
his arms appeared free from any cuts, marks, welts, or
bruises. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X -
stated that when she gets into trouble she has to stand in
the corner like her brother. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶
4-5; Ex. X - DCS000019). O.L. denied that she or her brothers
got spanked, that physical abuse occurred in the home, and
that the children were ever left alone. Id. O.L.
appeared free from any cuts, marks, welts, or bruises.
Id. O.L. stated that the neighbor “Ms.
Angela” would watch the children if Elizabeth had to go
somewhere but that the children are primarily watched by
October 17, 2013, DCS received a report that Elizabeth and
the neighbor “Angela” bully the children and that
B.L. had bruises and red marks on his face that were not
there the other day. (Ex. GG).
B.L. Is Admitted to the Hospital
October 23, 2013, FCM Williams met with Elizabeth, B.L., and
T.L. (O.L. was at school) at the Lake County Juvenile
Courthouse. Elizabeth reported that, on the previous day,
B.L. had thrown himself down the stairs and exhibited
self-harming behavior. An attempt was made to interview B.L.,
but due to his lethargic state he could not remain focused.
Because of the concern of possible head trauma, B.L. was
taken to Methodist Hospital in Merrillville, Indiana. (Ex. X
same date, FCM Deardorff received a phone call from Family
Case Management Supervisor (“FCMS”) LaShaunta
Pierce. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X - DCS000019).
Deardorff was informed that due to possible head trauma, B.L.
had been taken to the hospital. Id. FCM Deardorff
and FCM Smith went to the hospital. Id. Smith
contacted Detective Castellanos of the Valparaiso Detective
Bureau, who met Deardorff and Smith at the hospital.
Id. Deardorff and Smith escorted Elizabeth to a
small private room. Id. Elizabeth's neighbor
Angela Terrell joined them. Elizabeth told them that on
October 22, 2013, B.L. had fallen down the stairs. Elizabeth
and Angela provided extensive details regarding B.L.
and Smith then visited B.L. in the emergency room. B.L.'s
right ear was purple and he had a black eye. (Deardorff Aff.
¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X - DCS000020). B.L. had two large
injuries on each side of his bottom, and his arms were
covered in bruises and appeared to have four cigarette burns.
Id. B.L.'s speech was slurred and much slower,
and his body movements were much slower. Id.
Deardorff and Smith attempted to speak to B.L. about his
injuries, but he gave varying stories and was falling asleep
throughout the conversation. Id. T.L. did not have
any outward signs of abuse or neglect. Deardorff and Smith
contacted Detective Castellanos who took pictures of B.L.
Detective Castellanos, FCM Williams, and B.L.'s attending
nurse all attempted to speak with B.L. but were unable to get
an answer about how he was injured.
time, it was determined that all three Lozano children would
be taken into protective custody. (Deardorff Aff.
¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X - DCS000021). FCM Smith contacted FCM
Gibson of Porter County DCS who in turned picked O.L. up from
school. A “Taking Custody of A Child Without a Verbal
or Written Court Order: Description of Circumstances”
form was completed by Deardorff for both Elizabeth and
Joseph, and the forms were submitted to the juvenile court at
the Initial Detention Hearing. (Deardorff Aff. ¶ 9, Exs.
SS, RR - DCS000129-132). Deardorff also filed a
“Petition for Emergency Detention” for each of
the children. (Ex. K - DCS000126-128). The three children
were placed with a foster family.
same day, October 23, 2013, Deardorff, Detective Castellanos,
and Elizabeth went to the Valparaiso Police Department in
Detective Castellanos' car. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶
4-5; Ex. X -DCS000021). Elizabeth admitted to Deardorff that,
although she initially told DCS that she took B.L. to the
hospital on October 22, 2013, she had lied and that she did
not take B.L. to get examined. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶
4-5; Ex. X - DCS000023-24). Throughout the interview and
subsequent investigation, it was discovered that B.L. had
been abused. (Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X
-DCS000023-29). The majority of the abuse was attributable to
Elizabeth's neighbor, Angela Terrell. Id.
was not aware that Angela Terrell was involved until the
discovery from the police. (Joseph Dep. 85:23-86:-1). Paula
never mentioned Angela Terrell to DCS because she did not
know about her. (Paula Dep. 66:2-15). Paula did not report to
DCS any abuse with a wooden spoon, a flyswatter, a belt, or
that B.L. was slapped. (Paula Dep. 64:2-19). Paula also did
not report that B.L. had been punished by having food
withheld or that B.L. was once punished for urinating on
Terrell's floor. (Paula Dep. 64-65:20-7).
The October 24, 2013 Initial Detention Hearing
October 24, 2013, a Verified Petition Alleging Children in
Need of Services was filed by DCS attorney Julie Carter. (Ex.
L - DCS000145-147). The Petition included that “[t]he
father of the children does not have legal custody and the
Porter Superior Court issued an Order of Protection on
September 26, 2013, which prohibits him from having contact
with the children due to issues of domestic violence. The
Order is in effect until September 24, 2015.” (Ex. L -
October 24, 2013, Joseph had a court date with the Porter
Superior Court to get the September 24, 2013 Order of
Protection dismissed. (Joseph Dep. 33:3-13). Joseph and Paula
were en route to the court hearing when Joseph received a
call informing him that he was needed at the Porter Juvenile
Court. (Joseph Dep. 35-36:16-8). They changed direction, and
Paula drove Joseph to the juvenile court. (Paula Dep.
Porter Juvenile Court, present were Joseph, Joseph's
attorney Donald J. Evans, Elizabeth, Elizabeth's attorney
Joanne Baitup, DCS attorney Julie Carter, and FCM Deardorff.
(Joseph Dep. 37:5-11; Ex. M - DCS000149-150). The Porter
Juvenile Court issued a “Detention/Initial Hearing
Order” that same day, October 24, 2013. (Ex. M -
DCS000149-151). The court found that it was in the
children's best interest to be removed from the home and
that “reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate
removal of the children were not required due to the
emergency nature of the situation.” (Ex. M -
DCS000150). Further, the Court stated, “The Court finds
there is currently a protective order in place between father
and the children, and that there is the potential for a No
Contact Order between mother and the children, and therefore
does not authorize mother or father visitation with the
children at this time.” (Ex. M - DCS000150). The Court
also issued an “Order for Emergency Detention, ”
ordering that the three children should be immediately
detained by DCS. (Ex. N - DCS000152). Lastly, to allow Joseph
and Elizabeth the opportunity to consult with counsel, the
court set a Continued Initial Hearing for November 5, 2013.
(Ex. M - DCS000151).
the October 24, 2013 juvenile court hearing was occurring,
FCM Smith met B.L. and his foster parents at the St. Anthony
Hospital in the Emergency Room. (Ex. X - DCS000029). The
foster father stated that B.L. had slept most of the time in
their care and that he complained of head pain. Id.
The CT scan of B.L.'s brain showed a subdural hematoma,
and B.L. was transported to Riley Children's Hospital in
the October 24, 2013 hearing, the Porter Juvenile Court judge
notified Joseph that B.L. was seriously injured, that B.L.
was being taken to Riley's Children's Hospital in
Indianapolis, and that the other two children had been put in
foster care. (Joseph Dep. 38:1-16, 40:15-19). After the
hearing, FCM Deardorff met with Joseph and advised him of the
report made regarding his children on October 11, 2013.
(Deardorff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. X - DCS000030).
Joseph and his mother were in the juvenile court hearing,
Joseph's father went to the Porter Superior Court
regarding the September 24, 2013 Orders of Protection against
Joseph, his parents, and his sister. (Joseph Dep. 36:12-18;
Paula Dep. 36:2-7). The four Orders of Protection were
dismissed the same day as the juvenile court hearing. (Joseph
Dep. 56:18-23, 86:19-10; Paula Dep. 36:18-20). Although it is
unclear at what time the Orders of Protection were dismissed,
it is clear that the Porter Juvenile Court judge did not know
that the Order of Protection against Joseph had been
dismissed at the time of the judge's ruling. (Paula Dep.
36:16-25, 40:17-25, 47:2-10). The juvenile court did not
receive the paperwork that showed that the Order of
Protection against Joseph had been dismissed until October
28, 2017. (Paula Dep. 50-51:20-7).
October 24, 2013, DCS received reports that Riley
Children's Hospital was attempting to get in contact with
Porter County DCS and that permission was needed to treat
B.L. (Exs. II, JJ). On October 25, 2013, DCS again received a
report that Riley Children's Hospital needed permission
to treat B.L. (Ex. JJ).
relevant times, including from October 24, 2013, through
December 5, 2013, Joseph and Elizabeth were married and were
not deemed legally separated, as Joseph's Verified
Petition for Dissolution was not filed until July 2014 and
the Decree ...