ILNews

Governor signs DCS, new judge legislation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels signed legislation last week that gives Johnson Superior Court a fourth judge and Allen Circuit Court another full-time magistrate, and an enrolled act that makes changes to the Department of Child Services.

In addition to giving Johnson Superior Court a new judge in 2015, House Enrolled Act 1092 states that a City Court in a city that has between 10,500 and 11,000 residents has concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy doesn’t exceed $1,500. Senate Enrolled Act 152 gives Allen Circuit Court a second full-time magistrate beginning July 1, 2013.  

Senate Enrolled Act 286, among other things, requires DCS to conduct a criminal history check of certain people before a child is reunited with a parent or guardian. It also states that an audio recording of a telephone call to the child abuse hotline is confidential and can only be released upon a court order. It requires that if a hearing regarding a petition to terminate parental rights isn't commenced or held within a certain time frame, the court should dismiss it.

The governor has also signed:

•    HEA 1065, on military custody and parenting time matters.

•    HEA 1273, which requests the Legislative Council study the topic of creating a centralized department of administrative law judges within the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

•    SEA 156, which establishes a new procedure for partitioning real and personal property.

•    SEA 157, on copy of power of attorney.

•    SEA 246, on lab technician testimony in criminal cases.

•    HEA 1033 on conversion of a Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor.

Daniels has received all of the legislation approved by the General Assembly this session. He has seven days from the date he received the enrolled act to sign or veto it. If he takes no action by the seventh day, it becomes law without signature.



 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT