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 a
delinquent act, or that an adult committed a crime must be based
upon 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 a
proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and
convincing 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 chapter
must 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 child
in need of services because of an act or omission of the child's
parent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competent
evidence of probative value that:
(1) the child has been injured;
(2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, or
custodian:
(A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or
(B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or control
of the child; and
(3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for the
act 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 a
child in need of services if the state establishes that:
(1) another child in the same household is the victim of a sex
offense 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 household
with the child; and
(B) resulted in a conviction of the adult or a judgment under
IC 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 the
presumption under subsection (a):
(1) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described in
IC 31-34-1-3 is not genetically related to the adult who
committed the act, but the child presumed to be the child in
need of services under this section is genetically related to the
adult who committed the act.
(2) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described in
IC 31-34-1-3 differs in age from the child presumed to be the
child in need of services under this section.
(c) This section does not affect the ability to take a child into
custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2 if the act of taking
the child into custody or emergency custody is not based upon a
presumption established under this section. However, if the
presumption established under this section is the sole basis for taking
a child into custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2, the
court first must find cause to take the child into custody or
emergency custody following a hearing in which the parent,
guardian, or custodian of the child is accorded the rights described
in 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 a
parent, guardian, or custodian injured a child is admissible in
proceedings alleging that a child is a child in need of services to
show the following:
(1) Intent, guilty knowledge, the absence of mistake or accident,
identification, the existence of a common scheme or plan, or
other similar purposes.
(2) A likelihood that the act or omission of the parent, guardian,
or custodian is responsible for the child's current injury or
condition. 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 child
is 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 department
had probable cause to believe the parent, guardian, or custodian
was impaired, intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs or
alcohol immediately before or at the time of the child's death;
(3) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department
requests, not later than three (3) hours after the death of the
child, the parent, guardian, or custodian to submit to a drug or
alcohol screen test; and
(4) the parent, guardian, or custodian did not submit to a drug
or alcohol screen test within three (3) hours after the request by
a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department;
the failure to submit to the drug or alcohol test may be used to
determine that the parent, guardian, or custodian was intoxicated or
under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the child's death
for the purpose of the determination required under IC 31-33-8-12.
(b) Evidence from a drug or alcohol screen test administered
under this section is not admissible as evidence in a criminal
proceeding. As added by P.L.131-2009, SEC.63.
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 a
delinquent act, or that an adult committed a crime must be based
upon 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 a
proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and
convincing 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 chapter
must 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 child
in need of services because of an act or omission of the child's
parent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competent
evidence of probative value that:
(1) the child has been injured;
(2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, or
custodian:
(A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or
(B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or control
of the child; and
(3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for the
act 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 a
child in need of services if the state establishes that:
(1) another child in the same household is the victim of a sex
offense 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 household
with the child; and
(B) resulted in a conviction of the adult or a judgment under
IC 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 the
presumption under subsection (a):
(1) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described in
IC 31-34-1-3 is not genetically related to the adult who
committed the act, but the child presumed to be the child in
need of services under this section is genetically related to the
adult who committed the act.
(2) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described in
IC 31-34-1-3 differs in age from the child presumed to be the
child in need of services under this section.
(c) This section does not affect the ability to take a child into
custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2 if the act of taking
the child into custody or emergency custody is not based upon a
presumption established under this section. However, if the
presumption established under this section is the sole basis for taking
a child into custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2, the
court first must find cause to take the child into custody or
emergency custody following a hearing in which the parent,
guardian, or custodian of the child is accorded the rights described
in 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 a
parent, guardian, or custodian injured a child is admissible in
proceedings alleging that a child is a child in need of services to
show the following:
(1) Intent, guilty knowledge, the absence of mistake or accident,
identification, the existence of a common scheme or plan, or
other similar purposes.
(2) A likelihood that the act or omission of the parent, guardian,
or custodian is responsible for the child's current injury or
condition. 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 child
is 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 department
had probable cause to believe the parent, guardian, or custodian
was impaired, intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs or
alcohol immediately before or at the time of the child's death;
(3) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department
requests, not later than three (3) hours after the death of the
child, the parent, guardian, or custodian to submit to a drug or
alcohol screen test; and
(4) the parent, guardian, or custodian did not submit to a drug
or alcohol screen test within three (3) hours after the request by
a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department;
the failure to submit to the drug or alcohol test may be used to
determine that the parent, guardian, or custodian was intoxicated or
under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the child's death
for the purpose of the determination required under IC 31-33-8-12.
(b) Evidence from a drug or alcohol screen test administered
under this section is not admissible as evidence in a criminal
proceeding. As added by P.L.131-2009, SEC.63.
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 a
delinquent act, or that an adult committed a crime must be based
upon 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 a
proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and
convincing 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 chapter
must 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 child
in need of services because of an act or omission of the child's
parent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competent
evidence of probative value that:
(1) the child has been injured;
(2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, or
custodian:
(A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or
(B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or control
of the child; and
(3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for the
act 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 a
child in need of services if the state establishes that:
(1) another child in the same household is the victim of a sex
offense 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 household
with the child; and
(B) resulted in a conviction of the adult or a judgment under
IC 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 the
presumption under subsection (a):
(1) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described in
IC 31-34-1-3 is not genetically related to the adult who
committed the act, but the child presumed to be the child in
need of services under this section is genetically related to the
adult who committed the act.
(2) The child who is the victim of the sex offense described in
IC 31-34-1-3 differs in age from the child presumed to be the
child in need of services under this section.
(c) This section does not affect the ability to take a child into
custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2 if the act of taking
the child into custody or emergency custody is not based upon a
presumption established under this section. However, if the
presumption established under this section is the sole basis for taking
a child into custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2, the
court first must find cause to take the child into custody or
emergency custody following a hearing in which the parent,
guardian, or custodian of the child is accorded the rights described
in 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 a
parent, guardian, or custodian injured a child is admissible in
proceedings alleging that a child is a child in need of services to
show the following:
(1) Intent, guilty knowledge, the absence of mistake or accident,
identification, the existence of a common scheme or plan, or
other similar purposes.
(2) A likelihood that the act or omission of the parent, guardian,
or custodian is responsible for the child's current injury or
condition. 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 child
is 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 department
had probable cause to believe the parent, guardian, or custodian
was impaired, intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs or
alcohol immediately before or at the time of the child's death;
(3) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department
requests, not later than three (3) hours after the death of the
child, the parent, guardian, or custodian to submit to a drug or
alcohol screen test; and
(4) the parent, guardian, or custodian did not submit to a drug
or alcohol screen test within three (3) hours after the request by
a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department;
the failure to submit to the drug or alcohol test may be used to
determine that the parent, guardian, or custodian was intoxicated or
under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the child's death
for the purpose of the determination required under IC 31-33-8-12.
(b) Evidence from a drug or alcohol screen test administered
under this section is not admissible as evidence in a criminal
proceeding. As added by P.L.131-2009, SEC.63.
