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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT