The Indiana Supreme Court is considering a case where a St. Joseph County juvenile judge has declared unconstitutional three
statutes involving child placements, a controversial issue that’s pitted many within the state judiciary against the
Indiana Department of Child Services for the past two years.
With jurisdiction in The Matter of A.B., a Child Alleged to be a Delinquent, No. 71S00-1002-JV-00156, the state
justices are asked to review the topic that first 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 else the county must pay for that placement. The change came after the Indiana Supreme Court
in April 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 St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth – an outspoken advocate against the policy change – ruled in February
on a juvenile delinquent case that the statutes are unconstitutional. The case involves a teenager who was originally placed
in a South Bend facility, but escaped last year 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 in the suit 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.
Briefs are being submitted in that case, and the local probation department has until Aug. 13 to file a response. The state
agency filed a motion to dismiss in late June, but the justices hadn’t issued a decision on that by IL deadline.
Rehearing from "Bill seeks to repeal placement statute" IL Jan. 20-Feb. 2, 2010














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.