ILNews

Committee ponders DCS authority of juveniles

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An interim legislative committee is deciding what it should do about a last-minute, special session addition giving the Department of Child Services even more control over juvenile justice decisions that judges have historically been entrusted to make.

Hearing about an hour's worth of testimony from both sides Thursday afternoon, the Commission on Courts considered the issue of out-of-state placements of juvenile offenders. The topic was raised in recent appellate decisions and has been the subject of juvenile justice advocates since the 2009 legislative special session.

In the finalized budget bill, Indiana Code Section 31-37-19-3(f) was amended to read, "The [IDCS] is not responsible for payment of any costs or expenses for housing or services provided to or for the benefit of a child placed by a juvenile court in a home or facility located outside Indiana, if the placement is not recommended or approved by the director of the department or the director's designee."

Judges were surprised and not happy with this last-minute addition, particularly because many were still reeling from the sweeping statutory changes entailed in H.E.A. 1001 from the 2008 session that gave the DCS more authority over juvenile justice decisions and shifted some funding from the local level to the state.

This out-of-state placement issue arose Aug. 10 in an Indiana Court of Appeals decision when the judges affirmed a Madison Superior judge's decision to place a juvenile in an Arizona facility over the DCS' objection. While finding that the new statute wasn't yet applicable to this case, the appellate court hinted that the same situation might have a different result if considered again.

With all of that building up in recent months, DCS Director James Payne attended the Commission on Courts meeting and spoke in favor of the change, while a handful of juvenile judges appeared to express their displeasure at how the changes were put in place quickly and without discussion from the judiciary.

Commission chair Sen. Linda Lawson, D-Gary, expressed concern that the issue was tacked into the special session budget that many lawmakers failed to fully review or understand because of the last-minute action.

"I trust my juvenile judges, and I think they do a good job," Lawson told Payne as he sat before the commission and explained his position.

During his testimony, Payne told members that the DCS' main priority is to keep children close to home and "engage families" as much as possible. Out-of-state placement is used as a last resort, and Payne said states throughout the country are reducing the number of juveniles placed out of state. Indiana should do the same because research shows the state has the capacity to keep virtually every child here and offer adequate services, he said.

"Frankly, in my time on the bench, I sent a lot of kids out of state," said Payne, who served for two decades as the Marion Superior juvenile judge. "But in the early 1990s, I concluded that it wasn't the best practice. Keeping children close to home is the best practice ... that's something the state can and should support."

Tippecanoe Superior Juvenile Judge Loretta Rush said judicial discretion being taken away and placed with an executive branch state agency sets Indiana's juvenile justice system backward. She agreed with her colleagues that juveniles should be placed within Indiana if that's possible; however, they disagreed that any out-of-state placement should be reduced to a money-based decision made by a state agency.

"They want to look at pieces of paper to make decisions. Is that the way we want justice to operate for our kids and their families?" St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth asked the commission. "For them to sit back and throw darts at a dartboard without knowing the particulars of a juvenile or a family, if there's a family ... it's not the right thing to do. It certainly interferes with judges doing their job."

Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker, who was sitting on the commission in the place of Chief Justice Randall Shepard, indicated he hadn't heard any discussion with the judiciary about this being an issue prior to the special session budget bill changing. His observation is that a juvenile placement used to be a judicial decision, but now it's been turned into an executive department decision.

When asked by a senator whether the state agency's authority takes the decision-making function from the juvenile judges, Payne responded by saying that, "Some judges are more attentive to this than others. As a juvenile court judge for some time, I thought I knew a lot. But I've found I didn't know it all."

No decision has been made about how to proceed with this issue, or the other two issues discussed Thursday: potential probation department consolidations and issues pertaining to asbestos-related illnesses.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT