ILNews

Governor names first DCS ombudsman

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis woman with nearly three decades of experience working in child welfare, social work, and family counseling has been named the state's first Department of Child Services ombudsman. Gov. Mitch Daniels announced the selection Nov. 13.

Susan Hoppe, who has spent the last nine years as a social worker with Marion Circuit and Superior courts, will start in the new role Dec. 14. The position of ombudsman was created during the 2009 legislative session and will be an independent evaluator in the safety and welfare of children in the state.

Hoppe also previously worked at the Marion County Office of Family and Child Services in several positions, including as manager of a staff of 50 employees who investigated reports of child abuse and neglect and provided services to children.

She helped create the Marion County Child Advocacy Center and assisted in initiating the 24/7 coverage of Child Protection Services workers.

In the beginning of her career, Hoppe was a policy consultant with the Family and Social Services Administration when the agency was responsible for child services programs. She received her undergraduate degree from Northern Illinois University and her master's degree from Butler University.

ADVERTISEMENT

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