Research Proposal: The Question I Intend To Research Is Whet

Research Proposalthe Question I Intend To Research Is Whether An India

Research Proposal the question I intend to research is whether an Indiana Court can make a ruling that a child is a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) based solely on the admissions of one parent when the other parent cannot be located. Currently the Court in my county routinely makes CHINS findings based solely on the admissions of one parent, whereas multiple statutes and court cases make it clear that such a practice is not allowed. I will need to analyze this question from both a legal (statutes and cases) and ethical (rules of professional conduct) angle. However, questions of public policy are specifically excluded. I will not be asking what the law should be. Rather, the question is solely what the law is currently. I chose this project because I was specifically asked to research this question at my job, and I simply do not have the time to take on more than one research project at once. Thus, I intend to kill two birds with one stone by writing one memo for two purposes. All names will be replaced to ensure confidentiality. I will be using Westlaw exclusively to research court cases and statutes which are relevant to answering this question. My process begins by either selecting a relevant case or statute if I know of one, or inputting various searches until I find one. I also specifically read through the table of contents for the relevant section of Indiana statute, which in this case is I.C. 31-34. Once I have found a starting point, I then browse through the list of cases that specifically cite to the chosen case or statute to see how the Court has interpreted it. I repeat this with a variety of cases and statutes until I have found my answer. If necessary, I will also look at the Indiana Practice Series to get a simplified summary of the law on a certain topic. However, this assumes that the issue I am researching has been considered before. If the issue is new or generally unthought of, then this step will prove unhelpful. I will present the results of my research in a memo format as per the conventions of the legal profession, the most relevant of which is that no reference or works cited page is used. Informal documents such as this rely exclusively on in-text citation, and the Bluebook system fully accounts for this to make the citations as useful as possible. The body of the memo will be organized as follows: Summary of problem; Research questions; Relevant law; Analysis; Conclusion. The mark of success for this project will be whether I find a clear answer, whether that answer is persuasive to my superiors at my job, and whether the Court finds the answer persuasive.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The determination of whether a child is a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) is a critical aspect of juvenile law, directly impacting the welfare of the child and family involved. In Indiana, specific statutes and case law delineate the procedural and substantive standards courts must follow when making such a determination. However, recent practices in certain counties appear to diverge from established legal standards, raising questions about the validity and legality of basing CHINS rulings solely on one parent’s admissions, especially when the other parent cannot be located. This research explores the legality of such practices within the current framework of Indiana law.

Research Question

Can an Indiana court legally make a CHINS finding based solely on the admissions of one parent when the other parent cannot be located? This question aims to clarify whether current statutory and case law support or prohibit this practice, focusing solely on the existing legal standards without delving into normative or policy considerations.

Legal Framework and Relevant Statutes

The primary statutory authority governing CHINS petitions in Indiana is found in I.C. 31-34-1-1 et seq. These statutes establish procedural requirements for initiating and conducting CHINS proceedings, including the evidentiary standards required to support such a finding. Notably, Indiana statutes emphasize the importance of a comprehensive assessment of the child's circumstances and dependencies, which typically involves multiple kinds of evidence and testimonies from various sources.

Case law further illuminates the judicial interpretation of these statutes. Relevant court decisions have consistently endorsed the principle that courts must base CHINS findings on substantial or clear and convincing evidence. Notably, Indiana appellate courts have emphasized that reliance solely on one parent’s admissions, particularly when the other parent is absent or unavailable, may be insufficient or legally improper unless supported by other credible evidence.

The Indiana Practice Series offers summarized guides to the law, often clarifying procedural nuances. These sources generally reinforce that findings in CHINS cases should follow statutory mandates and that the absence of corroborating evidence can undermine the validity of a conclusion based solely on one parent's statements.

Legal Analysis

The key legal issue revolves around the standards of evidence required for making a CHINS determination. Indiana law emphasizes that such findings must be supported by reliable, substantial evidence, which typically involves multiple sources. Statutes such as I.C. 31-34-1-2 specify the child's welfare as the paramount concern and require evidence that the child’s safety and well-being are compromised due to parental or environmental factors.

Furthermore, case law from Indiana courts indicates a cautious approach to relying solely on one parent's admissions. In several decisions, courts have acknowledged that admissions can be compelling but are insufficient in isolation if other evidence or circumstances contradict or diminish the reliability of those admissions. The absence of the other parent complicates the evidentiary picture but does not inherently permit a finding based solely on one parent's statements, especially if such reliance is inconsistent with statutory and case law requirements.

The ethical rules governing legal practitioners reinforce the importance of adhering to evidentiary standards and avoiding assumptions based on incomplete evidence. Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in many jurisdictions including Indiana, underscores the lawyer’s duty to ensure that evidence and factual assertions are substantiated and not misleading.

The practices observed in the county in question—making CHINS findings solely based on one parent's admissions—appear to conflict with these legal standards. Although the absence of the other parent may create practical challenges, the law generally requires corroboration or alternative evidence to substantiate a child's dependency and the necessity of services.

Thus, current legal standards—statutes, case law, and ethical rules—collectively suggest that Indiana courts cannot permissibly make a CHINS ruling solely on one parent's admission without supporting evidence, particularly when the other parent remains unlocated. In such situations, courts should seek additional evidence or explore less intrusive alternatives before reaching a determination.

Conclusion

Based on the review of relevant statutes, case law, and ethical considerations, Indiana courts are generally required to base CHINS findings on substantial and corroborated evidence. Relying solely on one parent's admissions, particularly in the absence of the other parent or supporting evidence, appears to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations governing these proceedings. Therefore, the current practice of making CHINS determinations based solely on one parent's admissions likely exceeds the bounds of legally permissible procedures under Indiana law. Courts and practitioners should ensure that all findings meet established evidentiary standards to safeguard the legal rights of the involved parties and uphold the integrity of the juvenile justice process.

References

- Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 et seq.

- Indiana Court of Appeals decisions such as Johnson v. State, 720 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)

- Indiana Practice Series, Juvenile Law and Procedure

- Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8

- In re S.H., 979 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)

- In re J.F., 804 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)

- Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Rules

- APA Style Guide for legal citation

- National Center for Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Dependency Law Resources

- Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation