Indiana is one of just six states that does not require counsel for children in child welfare cases in any situation, according to the National Association of Counsel for Children. Although Indiana Code § 31-32-4-2 does give state court judges the discretion to appoint counsel for children in child welfare cases, stakeholders say the Hoosier State could be forced to implement a direct representation program either through lawsuits filed by national children’s rights organization or federal legislation that Congress is considering.
Read More
The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee amended and passed a bill unanimously Wednesday afternoon that would entitle caregivers to legal representation in children in need of services cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines Monday against two Arizona death row inmates who had argued that their lawyers did a poor job representing them in state court. The ruling will make it harder for certain inmates sentenced to death or long terms in prison who believe their lawyers failed them to bring challenges on those grounds.
As the Legislature, agency stakeholders and foster parents restart the conversation about providing attorneys for children in child-in-need-of-services and termination of parental rights proceedings, the Child Advocates Direct Representation Program is an example of how direct representation works and what it can do.
A man charged with the murder of his 12-year-old son won a partial reversal from the Court of Appeals of Indiana after his motion to suppress evidence against him was denied.
Upon being retained by D.S. as counsel in his CHINS proceedings, Indianapolis attorney Rachel Roman-Lagunas visited him regularly, spoke with his family, arranged an in-person visit between him and his mother and assisted in getting him therapy. However, in an unusual turn, her advocacy has been interrupted by the trial court blocking her participation in the case.
A Boone County murder defendant convicted and sentenced to life without parole failed to convince a majority of the Indiana Supreme Court that the trial court improperly denied his request to proceed pro se. The majority provided an analysis for considering pro se requests in capital and LWOP sentences, but minority justices raised concerns about the majority “till(ing) new constitutional soil.”
A woman whose request for appointed counsel was denied will receive a new trial on her misdemeanor marijuana conviction after the Indiana Court of Appeals determined her constitutional right to counsel was violated.
The question of whether children in CHINS proceedings should be appointed counsel is best left for state court resolution, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, finding no “civil Gideon” principle requiring counsel in child welfare cases.