The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to a case in which a juvenile delinquent was placed in an Arizona facility over the objections of the Department of Child Services. The order also included a strongly worded explanation from the court’s chief justice that he would “smack down” judicial overreaching or overspending.
The DCS filed a petition to transfer jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14.1, which allows for expedited appeal of certain juvenile matters. On Aug. 10, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the placement of D.S. in an out-of-state facility despite objections from DCS. The appellate court ruled the Madison Superior Court complied with statutes that allow it to place a juvenile in a non-Indiana facility.
A recent change in one of those statutes now shifts the burden of paying for those facilities from DCS to counties.
The justices unanimously denied transfer, with Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard expounding on the denial of the second case to reach them under the new “rocket docket.”
The first case dealt with how quickly a child should be moved from placement with a relative living in Indiana to placement with the mother in another part of the state. The courts found it to be best for the child to finish the school year with the relative, then move.
“It hardly seemed the stuff of runaway trial judge spending,” wrote the chief justice about the first case. He noted the trial judge in the case of D.S. has been appealed for choosing the least expensive placement.
The DCS wanted the judge to be ordered to place D.S. in an Indiana facility, which would cost at least 50 percent more per day than the Arizona facility. Everyone involved in the case, except DCS, believe the Arizona facility is the best one for the child, which is the point of government intervention, Chief Justice Shepard noted.
“I stand fully ready to smack down anything that even sniffs of judicial overreaching or overspending,” he continued. “But if the appeals we have seen so far represent the worse instances of attacks on the public fisc, it suggests to me that judges, prosecutors, probation departments, and guardians are acting very responsibly.”
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.