Barahona-Gomez v. Reno

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the CHINS statute does not require the juvenile court and DCS to wait until a child is physically or emotionally harmed to intervene; rather, a child may be determined to be a CHINS if his or her physical or mental condition is endangered
• holding that the CHINS statute does not require the juvenile court and DCS to wait until a child is physically or emotionally harmed to intervene; rather, a child may be determined to be a CHINS when the child is endangered by parental action or inaction
• holding that the CHINS statute does not require the juvenile court and DCS to wait until a child is physically or emotionally harmed to intervene; rather, a child may be determined to be a CHINS if his or her physical or mental condition is endangered
• collecting cases involving the phrase “shall dismiss” in a statute related to the timeliness of CHINS proceedings
• upholding CHINS adjudication on basis that mother’s repeated coaching of children to allege abuse had unnecessarily “subjected [them] to multiple sexual abuse examinations” and endangered their mental health
• “the trial court’s Dispositional Order is 3 sparse, but it is apparent that the trial court did consider the elements required by I.C. § 31- 34-19-10”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).