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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT