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.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.