ILNews

Problem-solving courts, CHINS legislation return to house of origin

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate passed several House bills Tuesday, including legislation expanding when a person can participate in a problem-solving court program. The House of Representatives returned bills on children in need of services petitions and prosecutor pensions back to the Senate.

House Bill 1016 passed 49-0 and was returned to the House with amendments. The bill adds as eligible to participate those who have been referred to the court as a condition of a misdemeanor sentence, or a program authorized by the judge of the problem-solving court and the Department of Correction or county sheriff.

The legislation also would allow problem-solving courts to provide rehabilitative services – a class, program or service – to someone participating in the problem-solving court program. The court or another entity to which the individual has been referred by the court could provide the rehabilitation services in areas such as education, employment, or family support.

Senate Bill 164 on child in need of services petitions passed the House 92-0. The bill allows a prosecuting attorney to ask the juvenile court to authorize the filing of a petition alleging a child is need of services. The prosecutor also may represent the interests of the state at all proceedings dealing with the petition, unless otherwise agreed upon. The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee.

Prosecutors once had the ability to file these petitions, but the state code was changed when the Department of Child Services was spun off from the Family and Social Services Administration.  The bill goes back to the Senate with amendments.

Senate Bill 499 on pensions passed 97-0. The bill allows the board of trustees of the Indiana public retirement system to grant service credit to a participant who withdrew from the prosecuting attorneys retirement fund for years of service accrued before the withdrawal if the participant pays into the fund the full amount of the money received when the participant withdrew, plus interest at a rate specified by rule by the board.

SB 499 returns to the Senate without amendments and is ready for enrollment.

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

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT