ILNews

Court: counties responsible for GAL, CASA fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a significant opinion about the funding of child welfare cases, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that any guardian ad litem or Child Appointed Special Advocate fees associated with a child in need of services case must be paid by the county and not the state agency that lawmakers gave more oversight power to in the past year.

The unanimous ruling came in a consolidated appeal of In the Matters of N.S. and J.M.: Indiana Department of Child Services v. T.S. and S.B., and C.L., and B.M., No. 32A05-0902-JV-78. The case involves two separate CHINS cases ruled on earlier this year in Hendricks Circuit Court. Judge J.V. Boles, in separate decisions, determined both children were considered CHINS, appointed a GAL for each, and then ordered the state agency to pay a preliminary GAL fee of $300 in each case. The DCS appealed, and the cases were consolidated on appeal because both involved a similar question of law.

In its 13-page decision, the three-judge panel examined the 2008-passed changes in H.E.A. 1001 for how child welfare and juvenile justice cases are funded - mainly shifting the financial burdens from the local to state level in exchange for more influence by the DCS in recommending services. Under HEA 1001, if a trial court disregards a DCS recommendation and orders services or placements other than what's recommended, then the county fiscal body may become responsible for funding ordered by the local judge. However, the new statutory provisions do not specifically detail whether the state or country must pay fees related to GALs or CASAs - particularly in a case such as this where the appointments were uncontested.

The panel found nothing in Indiana Code Section 31-40-3-2 appears to contemplate the possibility that DCS should bear the burden of paying those fees, and the General Assembly didn't amend that statute to shift those costs. The panel also noted that Indiana Code Section 33-24-6-4 provides for optional state matching funds for GAL and CASA programs, indicating intent for the counties to bear the burden of costs ordered.

The court declined to decide whether those GAL or CASA services must be approved or recommended by the DCS before the state pays anything under IC Section 31-40-1-2 because the previous findings resolve the issues in this case.

"In addition, we recognize the distinct roles of each of our three branches of government and thus leave to the legislative branch the question of whether, in light of the trend toward State funding of child welfare costs, the costs associated with GALs and CASAs should be shifted to the State," the court wrote. "Under our current statutory scheme, however, it is clear that the burden of paying for services rendered by GALs or CASAs should be attributed to and paid for by the county."

The trial judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT