ILNews

Court erred in ordering DCS to pay costs

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Child Services isn't responsible for the costs of a minor's secure detention because it never entered into a written agreement with the juvenile court to cover the costs, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In In Re the Matter of M.W., A Child Alleged to be a Delinquent Child; Indiana Department of Child Services v. Hendricks County, No. 32A01-0905-JV-259, the DCS contested the trial court order it had to pay for M.W.'s secure detention and weekly child support while she was incarcerated in the Department of Correction. M.W. was living with her foster parents at the time of her arrest on possession of a stolen vehicle and operating while never licensed. M.W.'s DCS case manager, Kyla Rogers, admitted to being responsible for the girl and recommended she be detained in the Department of Correction instead of returning home with her foster mother. The trial court ordered her committed and that costs would be paid by the Marion County Department of Child Services at the request of Rogers. At the hearing in which M.W. admitted to the charges, the trial court ordered costs assessed against her and weekly child support to be paid by DCS because it acted in loco parentis.

Under Indiana Code Section 31-40-1-2, which took effect Jan. 1, 2009, DCS isn't responsible for payment of any costs of secure detention except for as provided under Section 2.5. That section requires a written agreement between the director of the department and the judge of the juvenile court that ordered the placement.

Based on the statute, DCS isn't responsible for the costs because it didn't enter into a written agreement, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. Hendricks County argues that Rogers invited the error during the hearing when she agreed to the trial court's inquiry as to whether she wanted M.W. placed in the DOC. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument because the exchange between Rogers and the trial court showed she believed M.W. should be placed in the correction facility until a more appropriate secure placement could be obtained. The record failed to show Rogers clearly intended for DCS to shoulder the costs of placement, wrote the judge. The Hendricks County director of probation even informed the trial court that DCS couldn't pay for her detention under the new law.

The trial court also erred in finding DCS acted in loco parentis. Citing In Re the Marriage of Snow v. England, 862 N.E.2d 664 667 (Ind. 2007), the appellate court reiterated that it would be difficult to envision burdening the DCS as an institution with a child support obligation. It that ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court wrote Indiana policy disfavors entering a support order against adults who are not natural parents and it doesn't make sense to require support from someone whose status is temporary in nature.

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT