ILNews

Bill seeks to repeal placements statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Lawmakers are considering legislation that would repeal a last-minute 2009 special session provision that gave the Indiana Department of Child Services key control in deciding whether juveniles should be placed outside the state.

In October, the interim legislative Commission on Courts expressed frustration that this provision was inserted into a massive budget bill, and members said many lawmakers likely didn't know about or fully understand the measure. Committee members voted to recommend that the Indiana General Assembly repeal that provision.

Co-authored by Rep. Winfield Moses, D-Fort Wayne, and Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, House Bill 1167 would revise Indiana Code 31-40-1-2(f), removing language that states the DCS is only responsible for paying any costs or expenses for housing or services to a child in a home or facility outside Indiana if the director or director's designee recommends or approves the placement. The state reports that the DCS spent approximately $4.2 million during calendar year 2009 for out-of-state placements, or about $52,000 for each of the 80 children placed in six states last year. A fiscal impact statement dated Dec. 27 says that since the provision took effect July 1, 2009, only two requests have been made for out-of-state placements. Both requests were approved.

If passed, this new law would begin July 1, 2010, one year after the special session change took effect.

Discussion was initially expected Jan. 12 at the House Judiciary meeting, but lawmakers postponed discussion after learning that St. Joseph Superior Judge Peter Nemeth couldn't attend to testify.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT