Indiana Department of Child Services v. A.B.
2011 Ind. LEXIS 567
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Direct appeal from a St. Joseph County Probate Court Order of Modification
- Court held Indiana statutes 31-37-17-1.4, 31-37-18-9(a)-(b), and 31-40-1-2(f) constitutional under Article 3, §1
- Court held 31-40-1-2(f) constitutional under Article 4, §19 (Single Subject)
- Case concerned out-of-state placement of an Indiana juvenile, A.B., and DCS funding responsibility
- Trial court found DCS placement restrictions arbitrary and capricious and ordered DCS to pay for Canyon State Academy placement
- Placement decision ultimately upheld as in the child’s best interests and DCS ordered to pay for placement at Canyon State Academy
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the challenged statutes violate the Single Subject Clause | A.B. argues statutes violate Art. IV, §19 | DCS contends statutes are proper within one subject and fund-appropriation context | No violation; statutes constitutional under the Single Subject Clause |
| Whether the statutes violate Separation of Powers | Statutes impermissibly encroach on judicial authority | Statutes delineate funding, not judicial power; not an impermissible shift | No separation-of-powers violation; judiciary retains final placement authority |
| Whether DCS’s out-of-state placement denial was arbitrary and capricious | DCS decision not to approve ROP was arbitrary/capricious | DCS Director overrides may occur; decisions reviewed under appropriate standard | DCS’s denial was arbitrary and capricious; DCS liable for payment for out-of-state placement |
| What standard applies to review of DCS Director decisions under 31-40-1-2(f) | Expedited Rule 14.1 review governs DCS Director decisions | AOPA review applies to DCS Director decisions | Appropriate standard is AOPA-based arbitrariness/capriciousness standard; not strictly Rule 14.1 but subject to judicial review for arbitrariness |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Black v. Burch, 226 Ind. 445, 80 N.E.2d 294 (1948) (separation of powers and judicial review principles)
- Warren v. Ind. Telephone Co., 217 Ind. 93, 26 N.E.2d 399 (1940) (judicial review of administrative actions; deference to agency autonomy)
- Pearcy v. Criminal Court of Marion County, 262 Ind. 9, 274 N.E.2d 519 (1971) (codification/one-subject interpretation; precursors to 1974 amendment)
- State ex rel. Test v. Steinwedel, 203 Ind. 457, 180 N.E. 865 (1932) (reasonableness standard for act within one subject)
- Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 275 Ind. 520, 418 N.E.2d 207 (1981) (reasonableness/one-subject considerations in statutory grouping)