ILNews

Legislature's end suspenseful for legal community

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As the Indiana General Assembly got down to its final hours in a short-session, significant changes for the Hoosier legal community were on the table to possibly increase the number of appellate judges, change how one county chooses its trial judges, and impact how juveniles can be placed outside the state.

In the end, lawmakers didn't act and the changes weren't adopted by the time they adjourned just before 1 a.m. Saturday. But how that process played out in the final days and hours is even more telling than the measures themselves and reflect what might happen in the future if the topics come up again.

Three days before the session ended, lawmakers resurrected House Enrolled Act 1491 that would not only have scrapped merit selection in favor of nonpartisan elections in St. Joseph Superior Courts, but also add a new panel to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The governor vetoed it last year with a strongly worded message supporting the current system that's been in place for more than three decades, and criticizing the merging of the two issues, which he believed should be considered separately.

In the final hours before the session ended, lawmakers still hadn't acted on it and weren't sure what the prospects were for possible consideration. The legislation's author, Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawka, was outside the state during the final week of the session and neither he nor House Speaker Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, returned messages from Indiana Lawyer about why HEA 1491 was resurrected. But it didn't get attention and was taken off the agenda at about 8 p.m. Friday, lost in the shuffle as lawmakers negotiated a session-ending deal involving unemployment insurance, jobs, and various financial issues.

As HEA 1491 faded, so did the prospects for Senate Bill 149 that would have repealed the Department of Child Services out-of-state placements statute change from last year - a revision that surprised and outraged juvenile judges and lawmakers for the most part because it came at the last-minute during special session conference committee talks. House Bill 1167 initially dealt with that issue and representatives approved it 93-4, but the measure died after failing to get a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The repeal was merged into SB 149 that included multiple DCS-related law changes, but some lawmakers opposed that move and it went to conference committee during the legislature's final week.

Attorney-lawmaker Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, had originally signed on as a sponsor to HB 1167. He was disappointed it didn't get support in the end, but said he wasn't surprised because DCS had considered it a high priority to defeat the measure. Some last-minute negotiations were happening to keep it included, but those fell through and lawmakers had to eliminate the placement issue in order to get the broader SB 149 approved.

Three of the four final conference committee members - Rep. Dennis Avery, D-Evansville; Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla; and Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville - said the opposition was too strong to get the placement law changed. The fourth committee member, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, couldn't be reached by Indiana Lawyer deadline.

Avery co-sponsored the amended SB 149 and said he worked on the conference committee for eight days to get it passed, but eventually let it die when it was clear the full bill wouldn't pass if the placements provision was included. Word was that the judiciary's chair Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, refused to hold a hearing and later opposed the amendment because it appeared to circumvent the committee process, Avery said. He also heard that the Senate leadership was supporting the administration and felt the placement revision was an attempt to embarrass the DCS and Director James Payne, a former juvenile judge.

Bell, one of the representatives who'd opposed the idea on the House floor, said he believes that juveniles shouldn't be sent outside Indiana because current service providers offer adequate and quality facilities that aren't fully used. He also noted that other measures in the legislation had been removed by the conference committee, including a provision that would have required DCS to adopt rules setting reimbursement rates for adoptive parents and service providers. This issue is currently the focus of an Indiana-based lawsuit in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bell said some worried a law change now could impact that pending litigation.

Despite the lack of success relating to out-of-state placements this session, Broden on the Senate side doesn't think the issue is dead and he hope to bring it back in the future.

"As long as juvenile judges, who handle these placements first hand, have concerns, lawmakers will be knocking at the door on this issue," Broden said. "I think this will be an ongoing dispute we have to address."

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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT