ILNews

Justices: Child placement statutes are constitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a much-anticipated ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled three statutes relating to juvenile judges’ authority on out-of-state placement cases are constitutional and that the Department of Child Services has statutory power to consider costs when considering those placements.

While upholding the controversial budget-focused law changes from 2009, the justices simultaneously ruled the state agency acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in a specific St. Joseph County juvenile’s case and comes “dangerously close” to usurping the judiciary’s authority in dealing with the lives of children.

The 33-page ruling is in The Matter of A.B. v. State, No. 71S00-1002-JV-00156. Previously, St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth declared unconstitutional the three statutes involving child placements that pitted many within the state judiciary against the Indiana Department of Child Services in recent years.

Specifically, the justices were brought into the debate that surfaced with last-minute legislative changes during the General Assembly’s special session in 2009. Lawmakers amended Indiana Code 31-37-19-3(f) to require DCS recommendation or approval for any out-of-state placement, or the county would be required to pay for that placement.

The change came after the Indiana Supreme Court in April 2009 ruled against the state agency and gave more deference to juvenile judges in making placement decisions when there’s a dispute about who should pay. Taking its case directly to the General Assembly, the DCS asked lawmakers to tweak state statute and give it more control. Juvenile judges and many lawmakers were surprised about the change that came without public discussion, although attempts to repeal those statutes failed in the years since.

But Judge Nemeth – an outspoken advocate against the policy change – ruled in a juvenile delinquent case that the statutes were unconstitutional. The case involved a teenager who was originally placed in a South Bend facility, but escaped and was subsequently ordered for placement in Arizona. The DCS objected to that out-of-state placement decision by Judge Nemeth, and filed an appeal that fell under Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b) giving the high court exclusive jurisdiction over cases where statutes are deemed unconstitutional.

Specifically, the questions raised are: Does Article 3, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution permit the General Assembly to require that courts get approval from the DCS for out-of-state placements?; whether the single-subject requirement of Article 4, Section 19 permits lawmakers from including the juvenile placement decision-making changes in a massive budget bill; and whether the DCS in-state placement recommendation in this case of A.B. was unreasonable based on the facts.

Finding that the legislative changes focused specifically on finances in the state budget and this provision related to DCS financial decisions, the court disposed of that single-subject argument. But both Justices Brent Dickson and Frank Sullivan wrote concurring opinions that delved into that subject more. Justice Dickson flushed out his agreement with the other justices, but indicated it might be time for the court to begin a “robust” review of that requirement’s enforcement. Justice Sullivan disagreed and wrote that no change is warranted because the court has faithfully followed precedent for more than a century.

Most significantly, the court found no separation of powers violation and held these laws don’t limit a judge’s power to place a child where he or she determines is in the best interest. Instead, they deal with how the state through the DCS funds each placement and allow for judicial review.

“Although this law does not throttle the judiciary by way of the administrative branch, it comes dangerously close to stifling the inherent empowerment our juvenile courts have always enjoyed in making decisions in the best interest of juveniles,” Justice Steven David wrote for the court, noting it’s acceptable for the Legislature to establish this kind of payment process for placements. “However, justice demands that consideration be given not only to which entity is going to pay, but what the costs and per diem are for the various placement options, as well as other relevant and pertinent factors focused on the best interest of the child.”

The court analyzed how much judicial authority should exist in these types of situations, since the General Assembly didn’t outline that guidance. Justices decided that authority shouldn’t fall under the “rocket docket” procedure established in Appellate Rule 14.1, but rather they applied the standards of Indiana’s Administrative Orders and Procedures Act.

Although they upheld the statutes, the justices found this DCS decision in A.B.’s case was arbitrary and capricious because it appears to only have been made on the basis that the placement was outside of Indiana.

“DCS cannot be the final arbitrator of all placement decisions,” Justice David wrote, noting that the state must pay for the out-of-state placement in this case because it’s more cost effective than in-state options. “In this particular fact scenario, the agency action in denying out of state placement was arbitrary and capricious.”

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT