ILNews

DCS launching pilot to address children with mental health issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of Child Services announced Monday that it will fund a two-month pilot program that will utilize local services to provide help for juveniles with mental health issues.

DCS Chief of Staff John Ryan discussed the pilot program at a meeting held by the Indiana Commission on Mental Health and Addiction. The commission discussed whether prosecuting attorneys should be allowed to file a petition alleging a child is a Child in Need of Services under Indiana Code 31-34-1-6 as well as the unmet mental health needs of children within the juvenile justice system.

Legislators created an interim study committee earlier this year to study these issues.

"This is a small, but important and complex population that presents a big struggle for many families," Ryan said. "For decades the only way these children have been able to get care is by entering the court system as a juvenile delinquent, or to have their parents claim neglect so the child can become a ward of the state. And everyone agrees – from state agencies, to prosecutors, to judges, to probation officers, to mental-health experts, to families – that is not the way to help these kids."

He said some kids with mental health issues fall into a “gray area” because, by law, DCS is only responsible for protecting children in situations of abuse and neglect by a parent, guardian or custodian.

A statutory change in 2008 took away prosecutors’ ability to file “CHINS 6” petitions, giving it solely to DCS. These petitions allege that a juvenile is a danger to himself or herself or to another person.

The pilot will launch in Lawrenceburg in the next two months. Schools, judges, probation officers, families, and others will be able to contact designated mental health access sites in their local area to refer a child in need of intensive services. Those sites will assess the child’s level of need and coordinate care, according to DCS.

The state agency initially will pay for the children who are not covered by private insurance or who are not Medicaid eligible, but it is asking legislators for around $20 million a year to cover the program across the state. DCS will cover the pilot and statewide implementation, which it says will cost around $11 million for the 2013 fiscal year.

The pilot program was developed through collaborations among DCS, Family and Social Services Administration, Indiana Council of Community Mental Health Centers Inc., juvenile court professionals and county prosecutors.

 

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