2006 Indiana Code - CHAPTER 12. FINDINGS, PRESUMPTIONS, AND EVIDENCE
IC 31-34-12Chapter 12. Findings, Presumptions, and Evidence
IC 31-34-12-1
Burden of proof of delinquent act or crime
31-34-12-1 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
31-34-12-2 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
31-34-12-3 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
31-34-12-4 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
31-34-12-4.5 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
31-34-12-5 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
31-34-12-6 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.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Indiana may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.