ILNews

DCS, criminal law study committees meet this week

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee will meet for the first time Wednesday afternoon to discuss various matters including funding and child in need of services cases.

DCS Director James Payne and chief of staff John Ryan will discuss the progress and improvements made by DCS since its creation in 2005. The agenda indicates personnel issues and a review and study of the DCS child abuse and neglect hotline will be discussed.

The committee will meet four more times in September and October. The committee will hear public testimony at its Sept. 5 meeting on DCS’ child abuse and neglect hotline.

The Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee is also scheduled to meet Wednesday. An agenda for the meeting had not been posted by Indiana Lawyer deadline.

On Thursday morning, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee will discuss portions of Indiana Code 24-4-18 dealing with criminal history providers and whether that statute should be amended before it takes effect July 1, 2015. Committee members will also look at the sex and violent offender registry and the potential loss of federal funds due to noncompliance with the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act.

The child support and criminal law committees’ meetings will be streamed online; the DCS committee agenda didn’t include information about watching the meeting over the Internet.

A full list of upcoming committee meetings can be found on the General Assembly’s website.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT