« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 8 NFP) | Main | Courts - Wine shipping dispute involving Maine and Oregon, with the latter represented by IU Law Prof. Tanford [Update] »

Monday, August 10, 2009

Ind. Decisions - "Apparently there are all sorts of surprises in the special session budget"

Thanks to Joel Schumm of IU Law for pointing out to me the footnote on the last page of D.S. v. State of Indiana, reviewed in the ILB entry immediately below. Judge May writes in note 2:

We pause to note a recent change to one of the statutes implicated in this case. When the court issued its modified dispositional order placing D.S. in the Rite of Passage program, Indiana law provided that IDCS was “not responsible for payment of any costs or expenses for housing or services provided to or for the benefit of a child placed by a juvenile court in a home or facility located outside Indiana, if the placement does not comply with the conditions stated in IC 31-34-20-1(b) or IC 31-37-19-3(b).” Ind. Code § 31-40-1-2(f). During the 2009 Special Session of the Indiana General Assembly, Indiana Code § 31-40-1-2(f) was amended as follows: “The [IDCS] is not responsible for payment of any costs or expenses for housing or services provided to or for the benefit of a child placed by a juvenile court in a home or facility located outside Indiana, if the placement is not recommended or approved by the director of the department or the director’s designee.” (Emphasis added). However, because the change to Ind. Code § 31-40-2-1(f) did not become effective until July 1, 2009, it is inapplicable to the present case.

Joel shows how the language changed:

(f) The department is not responsible for payment of any costs or expenses for housing or services provided to or for the benefit of a child placed by a juvenile court in a home or facility located outside Indiana, if the placement does not comply with the conditions stated in IC 31-34-20-1(b) or IC 31-37-19-3(b). is not recommended or approved by the director of the department or the director's designee.
This is the second special session budget language surprise the ILB has run across in the past few days. The other is the language limiting use of golf carts to cities and towns which have passed authorizing ordinances -- with no equivalent authority for counties. This has reportedly caused havoc with some long-time practices. See the entries from August 9th ("New golf cart laws may need corrective amendments") and August 5th ("New golf cart law, as amended, may work a hardship on those outside Culver town limits"). The final paragraph of the August 5th entry points out that the problems arise from language inserted into the special session budget bill.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 10, 2009 01:23 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions