ILNews

Court upholds out-of-state juvenile placement

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the placement of a juvenile delinquent in an out-of-state shelter care facility over the objection of the Indiana Department of Child Services, finding the trial court complied with statutes that allow it to place the juvenile in a non-Indiana facility. A recent change to one of those statutes now shifts the burden of payment to out-of-state facilities from DCS to the counties.

In the case In the Matter of D.S., Indiana Dept. of Child Services v. D.S. and Madison County Superior Court, No. 48A02-0905-JV-428, the appellate court granted DCS' request for expedited review of the trial court's May 19, 2009, modified dispositional order that placed D.S. in a facility in Arizona contrary to the DCS' placement recommendation.

After considering the recommendations from DCS and the probation department, with other evidence, the Madison Superior Court rejected DCS' placement recommendations and followed the recommendation of the probation department to put D.S. in a facility in Arizona. The trial court made the decision based on D.S.' history of gun and gang-related offenses, that he is a significant risk to the safety of the community and himself, and that he needs to be taken out of the environment he is currently in to have a chance to better himself.

D.S.' probation officer testified the probation department couldn't find a placement in Indiana comparable to the one in Arizona, and the places in Indiana willing to admit D.S. were inappropriate. DCS recommended placing D.S. in facilities geared toward sexual predators or serious psychiatric disabilities - neither of which D.S. had a history of.

The appellate court found the dispositional order was consistent with Indiana Code dealing with placement contrary to DCS decisions and out-of-state placement. The trial court's findings support its placement decision, so the trial court didn't commit clear error in ordering D.S. be placed in the Arizona program.

Judge Melissa May noted in a footnote at the end of the opinion that changes were made to one of the statutes implicated in this case during the 2009 Special Session. I.C. Section 31-40-1-2(f) was amended to say that DCS 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 of Indiana, if the placement is not recommended or approved by the director of the department or the director's designee. Because this change didn't become effective until July 1, 2009, it's inapplicable to the instant case. Prior to the amendment, DCS would have to pay for the out-of-state facility even if it didn't recommend it as long as the placement complied with conditions stated in I.C. Section 31-34-20-1(b) or I.C. Section 31-37-19-3(b).

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT