ILNews

AG: DCS out-of-state placements shouldn’t be reviewable by courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Supreme Court decision upholding three statutes relating to juvenile judges’ authority on out-of-state placement cases created what the state attorney general’s office calls too much confusion, and the AG is asking the justices to revisit the ruling it made a little more than a month ago.

But in a far-reaching legal argument, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General wants the state’s highest court to find that the Indiana Department of Child Services has “unreviewable power” to decide when the state will pay for out-of-state placements, regardless of what a juvenile judge may think is best for a child in his or her courtroom.

The AG filed a rehearing petition Aug. 1 in the case In The Matter of A.B. v. State, No. 71S00-1002-JV-00156, in which St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth declared unconstitutional a trio of state statutes involving child placements that pitted many within the state judiciary against the Department of Child Services in recent years. The juvenile court judge placed a troubled teenager in a treatment facility in Arizona after an escape from a South Bend facility, but the DCS objected and blocked the placement, leading to the judge’s declaration that the statutes were unconstitutional.

On June 29, the Indiana Supreme Court found the budget-focused laws constitutional and that the DCS has statutory power to take costs into account when considering placements. But while upholding the controversial law changes from 2009, the justices simultaneously held that the state agency acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in A.B’s case specifically because the desision appears to only have been made on the basis that the placement was outside of Indiana and didn’t take into adequate account the overall costs and benefits to the juvenile. The high court also scolded the DCS and said its use of this statutory authority generally comes “dangerously close” to usurping the judiciary’s authority in dealing with the lives of children.

In asking for rehearing, the AG says the justices went too far in analyzing the specific case involving A.B. and the facts surrounding the DCS placement denial in that situation. Instead, the AG contends that the justices should have simply addressed the constitutionality of the statutes and stopped there, rather than finding the DCS refusal was “arbitrary and capricious.” The decision, written by Justice Steven David for a unanimous court, leaves open too many questions and warrants reconsideration or further explanation, the brief says.  

Echoing what the justices wrote in their A.B. ruling, the brief notes that state statute doesn’t give the DCS “final authority” over placements but rather it provides “complete discretion” over whether state payments for out-of-state placements should be made if that placement isn’t recommended or approved by the DCS director. That doesn’t affect the welfare of a child or stop the juvenile court from paying for the out-of-state placement with county funds, the AG contends.

“The court and the juvenile are not impacted or harmed because DCS’s decision does not interfere with the court’s ability to serve the best interests of the child,” the brief says. “Consistent with the clear intent of the General Assembly, DCS’s decision merely determines whether county or state funds will be used to pay for out-of-state placements, and this decision is not reviewable.”

Citing non-juvenile cases from the past three decades, the AG argues that Indiana appellate courts have held some state agency actions – such as Department of Correction decisions on restitution, loss of earned credit time, and inmate segregation – are not reviewable by the state judiciary. State statute doesn’t provide any criteria for the DCS to use in evaluating out-of-state placements and the Supreme Court didn’t outline any in its June decision, either.

“Without any statutory limits, there is no way for a reviewing court to determine whether an executive’s decision is reasoned or arbitrary,” the brief states. “The Indiana Constitution, notions of due process, and decisions of this court do not contemplate that every agency decision be subject to judicial review, and with the intent of the Legislature on this point being clear, courts are not free to infer a private right of action. The Court should grant the petition and strike those portions of the opinion creating a non-statutory right of judicial review of determinations.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT