ILNews

Commission on improving status of children established under new law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mike Pence signed Senate Enrolled Act 125 Tuesday which creates a commission that will study issues and take actions relating to children in Indiana.

The Commission on Improving Status of Children will also work with other entities on issues concerning vulnerable youth as well as review legislation. The new law also establishes a Child Services Oversight Committee that will review data reports from the Department of Child Services and reports from the DCS ombudsman and make recommendations to the commission on improving the delivery of child protection services.

Local child fatality review teams will be placed in each county and a statewide fatality review committee will look at data on the local level and assist the local review teams.

The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee. This committee has been abolished under the new law.

Pence has until May 7 to sign or veto dozens of bills, including HEA 1057 on the prosecuting attorneys retirement fund, HEA 224 and 225, which deal with the duties and appointment of delegates to an Article V convention, and HEA 1482 on expungement. If made law, HEA 1482 allows a court to expunge records concerning misdemeanor and minor Class D felony convictions under certain circumstances, and gives judges discretion regarding other convictions. The law would also change the wording asking about criminal backgrounds to language such as “Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime that has not been expunged by a court?”

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT