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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT