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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT