ILNews

Out-of-state placement bill goes to House

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legislative committee has given its OK to a bill that would repeal a last-minute 2009 special session provision, which gave the Indiana Department of Child Services key control in deciding whether juveniles can be placed outside the state.

At the House Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, lawmakers voted HB 1167 out of committee and on to the full House for consideration by a vote of 9-2. Reps. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, and Dennis Avery, D-Evansville, opposed the bill and favored keeping that decision-making authority with the DCS, while Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington, didn't vote. Voting for the measure were Reps. Erich Koch, R-Bedford; Wes Culver, R-Goshen; Phyllis Pond, R-New Haven; Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis; Jeb Bardon, D-Indianapolis; Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis; Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend; Trent Van Haaften, D-Mt. Vernon; and Linda Lawson, D-Hammond.

The last-minute change came during the special session that ended June 30. In October, Commission on Courts members expressed frustration that this provision was inserted into a massive budget bill and said many lawmakers likely didn't know about or fully understand the measure. Committee members voted to recommend that the Indiana General Assembly repeal that key provision, and this legislation is the result. DCS Director James Payne, a former Marion Superior juvenile judge, testified at the hearing and said there's no reason to send children out of state because Indiana offers adequate programs and facilities for judges to place children.

He said 64 percent of the in-state options are filled to capacity, meaning there's a 36 percent vacancy rate. "Only on a rare occasion should we look at that," he said, adding that three requests have been made since this law took effect July 1, 2009 - two have been approved, one is still being considered.
Payne also pointed out that despite the placement inside or out of the state, many juveniles return to the communities they came from and get into trouble.

St. Joseph Juvenile Judge Peter Nemeth testified in support of the bill, advocating for a return to local juvenile judges making decisions on placements.

"One of the most important things I do is place children, and it's important that we get it right. But I'm not the only one who has to hear it now ... 'superjudge' has to hear it and approve it. That's a ridiculous system," he said.

Reading a letter from a child he sent to an Arizona facility, Judge Nemeth said that juvenile is going on to college now, something that might not have been possible with an in-state placement. He considers that placement a lifesaver for that juvenile.

"Isn't that what we're supposed to do?" he asked lawmakers. "If you don't approve this, I won't be able to do this in the future. If we have a one size fits all, then what do you need a judge for? Why not just feed the information about a case into a computer to make the decision? That's basically what 'superjudge' is doing."

Lawmakers didn't seem to keen on the idea of taking away judges' decision-making power on the out-of-state placement issue. Several noted that they hadn't heard of massive out-of-state placements or any judicial abuse happening at the local level on this, and that local judges who actually heard the evidence on a case is in a much better position to decide that instead of "a bureaucrat" in Indianapolis who hasn't been involved in the case.

Payne told them that judges and local caseworkers continue having a voice in the process, and this just provides oversight to make sure those judges are using reasonable efforts to find an in-state placement. He also said he regularly communicated with the DCS director during his time on the bench about the issue of out-of-state placements.

Additionally, Payne told lawmakers that the issue was about economic viability - that tax money and services are being sent out of state rather than being kept internally. If those out-of-state-service providers offer something that Indiana doesn't currently have, he'd rather see those services come to Indiana rather than shipping kids there.

But Van Haaften told the agency director that he seemed to be cheerleading for service providers in-state and tiptoeing around the core issue of what that last-minute change is all about: the executive branch, through the DCS, treading into the judicial branch's scope of authority. Foley, one of the two voting against the repeal bill, said he wasn't opposed to the idea of the DCS authority here because the agency has broader access to resource information than a local judge might have, and he thinks a child is more likely to be put in the right place if all options are being looked at. Pryor pointed out the stark difference in testimony between Payne and Judge Nemeth - one saying that placement doesn't make much difference because juveniles typically return to those home communities, while the judge talked about reforming kids and keeping them out of the system.

The bill now moves on to the full House for consideration. It must be passed on third reading by Wednesday in order to move on to the Senate for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT