ILNews

ALJ, problem-solving courts bills moving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A House bill dealing with problem-solving courts and a Senate bill that involves administrative proceedings and administrative law judge disqualifications have made it out of their respective judiciary committees.

House Bill 1153 was amended by the House Judiciary Committee and passed out of committee Jan. 20. The introduced bill included a chapter on possession of handguns by judicial officers, which was removed in committee. HB 1153 spells out when a problem-solving court may terminate an individual’s participation in the court program. The bill also makes the parent or guardian of a child accepted into a problem-solving court program financially responsible for court service fees and chemical testing expenses.

Senate Bill 67 made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 20 with several amendments. The legislation deals with administrative proceedings, dictates that the proceedings before an administrative law judge are de novo, and adds to the section dealing with ALJ disqualifications.

Also moving as of Monday morning:
-    SB 43, which would allow the parole board to require certain child molesters and other sex and violent offenders to wear a GPS tracking device. The bill moved out of the Committee on Corrections, Criminal & Civil Matters Jan. 12 and passed second reading in the Senate Jan. 18.
-    SB 74, which deals with guardianships, and HB 1055, which deals with adult guardianships and protective proceedings, both made it out of their respective judiciary committees last week.
-    SB 169, involving probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers, gained approval of  the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 20 without amendments. The legislation would allow for joint owners of motor vehicles and watercraft to transfer title as a transfer on death transaction. It also deals with matrimonial property and trusts and other probate matters.

Several bills of interest will be heard in committee this week. This morning, the House Judiciary Committee heard three bills, including HB 1182 on the creation of a consumer protection assistance fund. The bill passed and moved on for second reading. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear several bills including SB 91 on unifying Henry and Madison Circuit courts; SB 301 proposing an automated record-keeping fee that would fund the implementation of case management system Odyssey in state courts; SB 97 on the funding of lawsuits; and SB 499 on nominating Lake Superior judges instead of the current election process.

A complete list of bills is available on the General Assembly’s website at http://www.in.gov/legislative/.
 

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. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT