ILNews

Child Support Court being reopened in Gary

Marilyn Odendahl
December 4, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although an appeal is pending in the Indiana Court of Appeals, the child support court that had been consolidated to Crown Point in early 2013 is moving back to Gary.

The IV-D Child Support Court in Gary was relocated by former Lake County Juvenile Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura. Following Bonaventura’s decision, a complaint against the move was filed in Lake Circuit Court by several interested parties including Gary Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson.

Judge Thomas Stefaniak Jr. said the consolidation created an access to justice problem. Residents of Gary, East Chicago and Hammond who do not own a car would have a difficult time finding transportation to Crown Point.

“I have the highest respect for Judge Bonaventura,” Stefaniak said. “I can see why she did that. I don’t criticize her reasons. I just hold a different opinion.”

Also, he said, a courtroom for the child support court has been refurbished in the Robert D. Rucker Building and a parking lot is being added nearby which should alleviate some of the previous physical constraints and logistical problems with the Gary location.

Lake Circuit Court Judge George Paras had issued a temporary restraining order stopping the relocation. An appeal was then filed with the Court of Appeals.

Stefaniak and Freeman-Wilson made a joint announcement Dec. 4 that an agreement had been reached that should bring a settlement to the litigation surrounding the move of the IV-D Child Support Court. They attributed the agreement to a “collaborative effort” involving Lake County Commissioner Roosevelt Allen, Lake County Clerk Michael Brown, Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter, and Lake County Council members Elsie Franklin and Jerome Prince.

Freeman-Wilson discussed the case in September when she spoke in Indianapolis at the Marion County Bar Association’s Kuykendall-Conn Dinner. She said she had met with Bonaventura, now director of the Indiana Department of Child Services, and when they could not reach an understanding, the mayor decided to join the lawsuit.

If the litigation gets remanded to the trial court, Stefaniak believes a motion to dismiss will be granted. Even though the lawsuit has not been formally settled, the judge said he met with county leaders, talked to his staff and decided that moving the court back to Gary now was the right thing to do.

Stefaniak will assume full-time responsibilities at the Lake County Juvenile Court on Dec. 20. He anticipated the IV-D Child Support Court would reopen in Gary at the start of February 2014.

 



 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT