IC 31-34-12
    Chapter 12. Findings, Presumptions, and Evidence

IC 31-34-12-1
Burden of proof of delinquent act or crime
    Sec. 1. A finding by a juvenile court that a child committed adelinquent act, or that an adult committed a crime must be basedupon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

IC 31-34-12-2
Burden of proof in proceedings to terminate parental rights
    Sec. 2. Except as provided in IC 31-35-2-4.5(d), a finding in aproceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear andconvincing evidence.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.35-1998, SEC.8.

IC 31-34-12-3
Burden of proof in other cases
    Sec. 3. A finding not covered by section 1 or 2 of this chaptermust be based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

IC 31-34-12-4
Presumption that child is child in need of services
    Sec. 4. A rebuttable presumption is raised that the child is a childin need of services because of an act or omission of the child'sparent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competentevidence of probative value that:
        (1) the child has been injured;
        (2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, orcustodian:
            (A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or
            (B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or controlof the child; and
        (3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for theact or omission of a parent, guardian, or custodian.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

IC 31-34-12-4.5
Presumption if living in household with victim of sex offense
    Sec. 4.5. (a) There is a rebuttable presumption that a child is achild in need of services if the state establishes that:
        (1) another child in the same household is the victim of a sexoffense described in IC 31-34-1-3; and
        (2) the sex offense described in IC 31-34-1-3:
            (A) was committed by an adult who lives in the householdwith the child; and
            (B) resulted in a conviction of the adult or a judgment underIC 31-34-11-2 as it relates to the child against whom the sex

offense was committed.
    (b) The following may not be used as grounds to rebut thepresumption under subsection (a):
        (1) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described inIC 31-34-1-3 is not genetically related to the adult whocommitted the act, but the child presumed to be the child inneed of services under this section is genetically related to theadult who committed the act.
        (2) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described inIC 31-34-1-3 differs in age from the child presumed to be thechild in need of services under this section.
    (c) This section does not affect the ability to take a child intocustody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2 if the act of takingthe child into custody or emergency custody is not based upon apresumption established under this section. However, if thepresumption established under this section is the sole basis for takinga child into custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2, thecourt first must find cause to take the child into custody oremergency custody following a hearing in which the parent,guardian, or custodian of the child is accorded the rights describedin IC 31-34-4-6(a)(2) through IC 31-34-4-6(a)(5).
As added by P.L.18-2004, SEC.2.

IC 31-34-12-5
Admissibility of evidence of prior or subsequent acts or omissions
    Sec. 5. Evidence that a prior or subsequent act or omission by aparent, guardian, or custodian injured a child is admissible inproceedings alleging that a child is a child in need of services toshow the following:
        (1) Intent, guilty knowledge, the absence of mistake or accident,identification, the existence of a common scheme or plan, orother similar purposes.
        (2) A likelihood that the act or omission of the parent, guardian,or custodian is responsible for the child's current injury orcondition.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

IC 31-34-12-6
Admissibility of privileged communications
    Sec. 6. Neither:
        (1) the physician-patient privilege; nor
        (2) the husband-wife privilege;
is grounds for excluding evidence in a proceeding in which the childis alleged to be a child in need of services.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

IC 31-34-12-7
Failure to submit to drug or alcohol test
    Sec. 7. (a) For purposes of an assessment by the department, if:
        (1) a parent, guardian, or custodian had care, custody, and

control of the child immediately before the child died;
        (2) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the departmenthad probable cause to believe the parent, guardian, or custodianwas impaired, intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs oralcohol immediately before or at the time of the child's death;
        (3) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the departmentrequests, not later than three (3) hours after the death of thechild, the parent, guardian, or custodian to submit to a drug oralcohol screen test; and
        (4) the parent, guardian, or custodian did not submit to a drugor alcohol screen test within three (3) hours after the request bya law enforcement officer or an employee of the department;
the failure to submit to the drug or alcohol test may be used todetermine that the parent, guardian, or custodian was intoxicated orunder the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the child's deathfor the purpose of the determination required under IC 31-33-8-12.
    (b) Evidence from a drug or alcohol screen test administeredunder this section is not admissible as evidence in a criminalproceeding.
As added by P.L.131-2009, SEC.63.