ILNews

'Rocket docket' now set for juvenile appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

New rules from the Indiana Supreme Court this week officially create an expedited "rocket docket" for certain juvenile cases going through the appellate system.

The court issued an order Tuesday amending the Indiana Trial Procedure Rule 59 and Rules of Appellate Procedure 14.1, which now read to specifically address those cases where state funding decisions for placement services are at issue. The amendments took effect Jan. 1, 2009.

These changes come after last year's legislative and state statute revisions contained in House Enrolled Act 1001, which as part of sweeping property-tax reform shifted funding of juvenile detention costs from counties to the state. The law gave the Indiana Department of Child Services more oversight authority of juvenile delinquency, status, and child welfare cases in a move designed to expand Indiana's ability to collect federal reimbursements and make the process more efficiently centralized through the state agency.

Courts and state officials have been working on this procedure since then to make sure those goals can be met while ensuring adequate appellate review.

Now, this expedited process will allow for the DCS and trial courts to get a quick review of any decisions about state funding with which they don't agree. The whole process is aimed at completing an appeal's procedural aspects within 30 days, without factoring in time for any court decision.

Rule 59 outlines how motions to correct error are handled, and this amendment adds a paragraph about orders relating to services, programs or placement of juvenile delinquents or those children in need of services. No motions to correct error will be allowed concerning various juvenile orders or decrees, the rule states.

Appeals of those orders and decrees are dealt with by Appellate Rule 14.1, which outlines the process for items including notice, transcript and records, memoranda, time extensions, rehearings, and petitions to transfer. Notice must be served and the clerk must complete the record within 15 days, and it must take priority over all other appeal transcripts and records, the rule says.

Each side is allowed five days to file a single memorandum, and no extensions are allowed. Rehearings following a court hearing are also prohibited by the rule. Any transfer petitions for the Indiana Supreme Court must be filed within five days after the Court of Appeals decision without any additional filings allowed.

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT