ILNews

Strategic planning needed to improve child services

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Years before the Department of Child Services came under scrutiny for high-profile failings of its statewide child abuse hotline, the judiciary was exploring ways to improve the entire system of juvenile justice, Indiana Justice Loretta Rush said.

Rush is a member of the DCS interim study commission and has been designated to serve on a proposed commission on improving the status of children. In an interview the day after the study panel wrapped up its work, she said its recommendation to create a commission on children represents an opportunity for stakeholders to speak with one voice.

loretta-rush-15col.jpg Justice Loretta Rush will serve on a commission on improving the status of children proposed by a DCS study panel. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“Even before the DCS study committee came about, we were thinking about working on something at the state level,” Rush said. “We need an organization that’s going to meet regularly with individuals with authority at the table so it can be productive.”

Scrutiny of DCS’s handling of hotline calls in the wake of child deaths spurred the study commission. But Rush said DCS reform efforts began in 2008 when she was among judges and court administration staff tapped by then-Chief Justice Randall Shepard to find ways to improve collaboration on juvenile issues among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

Part of the result was a National Center for State Courts analysis and strategic plan completed in March. It noted that more than 30 entities, committees or groups focus on child services in the state. “The existing committees and entities tend to focus on certain specific projects or on an

immediate need/crisis, but there are no overall strategic planning efforts,” the NCSC report said.

The NCSC recommended creation of a statewide commission on children that would bring together stakeholders. Draft legislation approved by the study commission would do just that. A separate proposed commission would have direct oversight of DCS.

Morgan Superior Judge Christopher Burnham served with Rush on the interim study committee and also was among trial court judges that Shepard tasked to study reforms in 2008. Burnham is optimistic proposed reforms will have momentum in the 2013 General Assembly.

“I think with the ideas that were put forth and the unanimity that came out of the committee as far as the legislators participating, I think there’s going to be some movement in the next session,” Burnham said.

In addition to the proposed commissions, the DCS study panel also recommended legislation and policy reforms that would:

• Route calls to the statewide child abuse hotline back to local DCS offices, where determinations will be made on necessary investigation and follow up;

• Reduce the number of hotline calls “screened out” and not referred for investigation;

• Restore the authority of prosecutors to file Child in Need of Services petitions;

• Require disclosure of DCS investigations and CHINS designations in petitions to modify visitation, custody or guardianship; and

• Localize decision-making regarding child fatality review teams.

Acting DCS Director John Ryan said in an email that the agency “will continue to work to be a resource for the legislature and the new administration as we explore the feasibility of the proposals during the 2013 General Assembly.”

Christy Denault, a spokeswoman for the transition team of Gov.-elect Mike Pence, said there would be no comment on the study commission’s proposals.

The proposed commissions on DCS oversight and improving the status of children can be successful, said interim study committee co-chair Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle.

“There’s no reason why they shouldn’t be,” Holdman said. “We have the right people on those committees. There’s been a whole new spirit of cooperation and communication (from DCS), and it’s been invaluable,” he said.

travis holdman Holdman

Study committee co-chair Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, said the theme of proposed revisions is shifting power back to local DCS offices and case workers.

“I think the public perception was this study committee was going to just be a big partisan fight,” Mahan said. “I was very pleased to see Democrats, Republicans and lay people sit on a committee where we talked about what we can do to take a system that has been improved and truly make it better.”

Holdman said Rush had been an early advocate for establishing a commission on improving the status of children in addition to a panel that would oversee DCS.

Innovative approaches to the persistent problems of child abuse and juvenile crime are likelier to happen when stakeholders from DCS, the judiciary, the Legislature, education, health care, mental health service providers and the public are involved, Rush said. The proposed 12-member commission on children would have such membership.

The commission would have a broad mandate, according to the draft legislation. It would evaluate DCS policies and practices and propose legislation on services and funding. The commission also would annually review key state rankings on a host of measures of children’s well-being. Those markers include academic success, early childhood education, childhood poverty and hunger, health, child abuse and neglect, detention rates and infant mortality.

That kind of data collection hasn’t been an emphasis in the past, Rush said.

Rush presided over a Tippecanoe Superior Court that handled juvenile and family court matters before she joined the Supreme Court in November. She made a point of making the Tippecanoe County court as open as possible. “The response is just tremendous,” she said.

People respond when they learn of the traumas children are going through in their communities, Rush said. She noted examples from her experience including a child removed from a home that contained a meth lab, and a 10-year-old who appeared in her court who was pregnant.

In Tippecanoe County, Rush said youth mentoring programs and after-school programs had made a difference, as had a community program to supply young people in need with backpacks full of food when they left school each Friday. Alternatives had reduced the population of juveniles in detention by 50 percent without increasing arrests.

“The government can’t do it alone,” she said. “It has to be communitywide and statewide.”

Rush said she doesn’t expect to actively lobby for passage of the measures that emerged from the study committee. She said her role is different.

“For me, it’s to keep shining the spotlight on youth,” she said, “and don’t accept the status quo.”•

------------------------------

Kids commissions

Draft legislation emerged from the interim study commission examining issues surrounding the Indiana Department of Child Services. Below are links to two pieces of proposed legislation that would:

Create a DCS oversight committee.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/CSIC03.pdf

Create a commission on improving the status of children.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/CSIC02.pdf

Other recommendations and minutes of the study commission can be viewed at:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/csic.html

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. 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