ILNews

Court rules on media access to CHINS cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the second time this month, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled on media access of CHINS records in a high-profile case involving the death of a child. In a ruling issued today in In the Matter of T.B., a child alleged to be a Child in Need of Services; Charity Bailey v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., No. 49A02-0712-JV-1007, Charity Bailey challenged several orders issued by the Marion Superior Court, Juvenile Division, granting release of court and agency records to The Indianapolis Star and Fox 59 News following the death of her 3-year-old daughter, T.B. Bailey and her boyfriend, Lawrence Green, allegedly neglected and murdered T.B.

The juvenile court granted media access to a pending CHINS proceeding involving Bailey and T.B. at the time of T.B.'s death, a transcript of an August 2007 review hearing in the pending CHINS proceeding, a closed January 2006 CHINS proceeding involving Bailey and T.B., records of two juvenile delinquency proceedings involving Bailey, and Indiana Department of Child Services and Marion County Department of Child Services records involving T.B.

The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court in its release of the pending CHINS proceeding and the closed CHINS proceeding pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-39-2-10, and IDCS and MCDCS records pursuant to I.C. Section 31-33-18-1.5, wrote Judge Terry Crone. The transcript of the pending proceeding shouldn't have been released, because under I.C. Section 31-32-6-2, the appellate court believed a "proceeding" is an actual hearing or trial, not the transcript of the hearing or trial. If the legislature had intended otherwise, it could have written the statute to include transcripts, wrote Judge Crone.

Bailey's juvenile delinquency proceedings records also shouldn't have been released because her alleged neglect and murder of T.B. weren't the basis for the delinquency actions, so the juvenile court erred in releasing them pursuant to I.C. 31-39-2-8. Also in the opinion, the Court of Appeals highlights I.C. Section 31-39-1-1, which provides that the confidentiality provisions of that chapter apply to all records of juvenile court except "records involving an adult charged with a crime or criminal contempt of court."

Noting it would be a futile exercise to try to determine which records fall under this exception now, the appellate court wrote it believed the legislative intent behind that exception applies only to juvenile court records that relate specifically to both the adult and the charged crime, wrote Judge Crone.

On Oct. 10, another Court of Appeals panel addressed the release of CHINS records to the media concerning the siblings of a murdered child in In the matter of K.B. and B.L; Amanda Brooks Lay, mother v. Department of Child Services. That panel found the trial court erred in releasing the caseworker's investigatory report and granting access to the siblings' CHINS records.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT