In re M.S.

          Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court The Honorable Karen M. Love, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D03-1711-JC-186

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Zachary J. Stock Zachary J. Stock, Attorney at Law, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

          PYLE, JUDGE.

         Statement of the Case

         [¶1] A.C. ("Mother") appeals the trial court's order determining that her daughter, M.S. ("M.S.") was a Child in Need of Services ("CHINS") based on a petition filed by the Department of Child Services ("DCS"). Mother specifically argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the CHINS case. Mother's motion was made on the ground that the factfinding hearing was not completed within the timeframe statutorily mandated by Indiana Code § 31-34-11-1. Concluding that Mother is correct that the hearing was not timely completed, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the CHINS case without prejudice.

         [¶2] We reverse and remand with instructions.

         Issue

         Whether the trial court erred in denying Mother's motion to dismiss the CHINS case.

         Facts

         [¶3] M.S. was born in November 2011. In November 2017, DCS filed a petition alleging that M.S. was a CHINS. At the beginning of the December 13, 2017 CHINS factfinding hearing, the trial court pointed out that the hearing had to be concluded "within 120 days of the date of filing." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 25). DCS asked the trial court to continue the hearing, and the trial court pointed out that the hearing had to be completed by March 15. The trial court rescheduled the hearing for February 23, 2018.

         [¶4] In January 2018, Mother filed a request for production of documents from the Danville Police Department. The police department responded to Mother's motion with a motion to quash because the documents related to the investigation that gave rise to the CHINS petition. The trial court held a hearing on the motions on February 16 and ordered the police department to provide Mother with the requested documents. Also at the hearing, Mother requested a continuance of the February 23 factfinding hearing and asked the parties to waive the one-hundred and twenty (120) day statutory period in which to complete the CHINS hearing that had started in December 2017. The trial court granted the continuance.

         [¶5] The factfinding hearing was completed in April 2018, and the trial court adjudicated M.S. to be a CHINS in October 2018. At the October 2018 dispositional hearing, Mother asked the trial court to dismiss the CHINS case because the factfinding hearing had not been held within one-hundred and twenty days of the filing of the CHINS petition. In support of her request, Mother cited Matter of T.T., 110 N.E.3d 441, 443 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018), which had been decided that month and held that the statutory timeframe set forth ...