Background
B.M., the mother of three minor children, appealed a Putnam County Circuit Court order adjudicating the children dependent and placing them in foster care.
The Fifth District considered the mother’s appeal alongside a related appeal by the children’s father in Case No. 5D2026-0461. The brief opinion did not independently recount the underlying facts or grounds for dependency, instead referring to the reasons discussed in the father’s related appeal.
The Court’s Holding
In a divided per curiam decision, the Fifth District affirmed the order adjudicating the three children dependent and placing them in foster care. Judges Makar and Soud concurred in the affirmance.
Judge MacIver dissented, referring to the reasons stated in his dissent in the father’s related appeal. Because this opinion does not reproduce the reasoning from either position in that appeal, it provides no additional substantive explanation of the majority’s holding or the dissent.
Key Takeaways
- The dependency adjudication and foster-care placement were affirmed.
- The majority relied entirely on reasoning from the father’s related appeal rather than restating it.
- The decision was divided, with Judge MacIver dissenting.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves the trial court’s dependency and placement order intact as to the mother. Attorneys evaluating the legal reasoning behind the affirmance or dissent must consult the related father’s appeal, Case No. 5D2026-0461, because this opinion incorporates those reasons without repeating them.