ILNews

Concerns about CHINS petitions raised during budget hearings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After the Indiana Department of Child Services made its presentation to the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday, the discussion quickly turned to Child in Need of Services petitions.

Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, asked DCS Chief of Staff John Ryan if giving prosecutors the ability to file CHINS petitions is appropriate.

“It’s fine,” Ryan replied.

Senate Bill 164 would allow a prosecuting attorney to request a juvenile court to authorize the filing of a petition alleging that a child is in need of services. Prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee, the bill has been returned to the Senate with amendments.

Ryan went on to explain that these children are not being neglected or abused, they have behavioral health problems. Prosecutors say these youngsters do not belong in the juvenile justice system, but in a care facility. He also noted that DCS is working with 25 community mental health centers around the state to provide the services needed for the children.

Ryan served as the agency’s director from September 2012 until Gov. Mike Pence appointed Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura to the post. Both Ryan and Bonaventura appeared before the Senate committee today.

Appropriations chair Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, raised concerns about giving prosecutors the ability to file CHINS petitions. Prior to DCS being established, he said, services and costs varied from county to county with some areas not having services at all.

When DCS was separated from the Family and Social Services Administration, prosecutors lost their ability to file CHINS petitions. Kenley said he is troubled that proposed legislation returning that ability gives prosecutors complete veto power over the handling of these cases.

Specifically, he said he is concerned if the DCS makes a recommendation that the prosecutor disagrees with, the prosecutor would have the sole authority to decide not to follow it and could then proceed in another way contrary to the system DCS has set up to try to handle these situations. He wants language added to the measure that would require the prosecutor to place the child back into the system of care the state has already built.

Both Ryan and Bonaventura said they would have no problem with such language.  

After the hearing, Kenley said, “We’ve set up that framework and both the prosecutor and the judge have ways that they can object to a particular treatment … , but they do not have the power to take the child out of that system which we’ve set up for those services.”


 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT