ILNews

House Committee approves CHINS bill returning power to prosecuting attorneys

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill giving prosecuting attorneys the ability to file a Child in Need of Services petition continues to garner strong support in the Indiana General Assembly.

The House of Representatives Committee on Family, Children and Human Affairs unanimously passed Senate Bill 164 at its meeting Wednesday. Authored by Sens. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, and John Broden, D-South Bend, the bill allows prosecuting attorneys to request authorization to file a CHINS petition.

Previously, the Senate approved the measure by a 49 to 0 vote.

Holdman served as co-chair of the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee which made numerous proposals for legislation addressing growing concerns over the handling of child abuse cases by DCS.

Testifying before the House committee, Holdman said the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council had asked that prosecutors once again be given the power to file CHINS petitions. Prosecuting attorneys had this ability previously, but when DCS was spun off from the Family and Social Services Administration, the state code was changed.

“We asked around and no one really knows why that occurred,” Holdman said.

Prosecuting attorneys told the interim study committee that the ability to file these petitions gives them another tool to use with families and helps keep the pressure on local DCS attorneys where the prosecutor believes a CHINS proceeding would be more appropriate.

Suzanne O’Malley, testifying on behalf of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, echoed Holdman.  

“We do support the bill,” she said. “It gives us an option in the case where we’ve got a child that may be doing some criminal things that we would consider filing charges on but would prefer not to and allow them to go through the CHINS system instead.”

 An amendment has been added to the bill giving the prosecuting attorney an option once the petition has been filed. The prosecuting attorney can follow the case all the way through until it is disposed of by the court, or the attorney can agree to return the matter to the DCS lawyer and let the department follow the case.

“In most cases, I’ll just tell you having been a former prosecutor, you would want to pass that back to the DCS attorney to follow that because they’re going to be involved with the family and those issues, not on a criminal case or probation type of case,” Holdman told the House committee.

After the hearing, Holdman described SB 164 as one of the DCS bills that has been introduced to provide better protection for the children and give families and providers more voice.

“With John Ryan coming on the scene, and I can only hope with our new director coming on in a few weeks, it’s just a new day for DCS,” Holdman said. “We have seen nothing but cooperation from John Ryan. It’s been a breath of fresh air.”  

Ryan was appointed DCS director when former director James Payne stepped down in September 2012. In January, Gov. Mike Pence named Lake County Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura to lead the agency.

 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT