In a statement issued on September 28th, Senator Donnelly said, in part, that the allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh are disturbing and credible.

The Senator also says he has reservations about nominating Judge Kavanaugh to this lifetime position, as that the information necessary for his nomination has not been gathered.

Senator Donnelly’s full statement can be read below:

I do not view Supreme Court vacancies through a partisan lens, which is why I have used the same thorough process to evaluate nominees regardless of who the president is at the time. That was the case regarding the nomination of Judge Garland and also when I voted for Justice Gorsuch, who was President Trump’s first nominee. It has remained my approach with Judge Kavanaugh. As I have made clear before, sexual assault has no place in our society. When it does occur, we should listen to the survivors and work to ensure it never happens again. That should not be a partisan issue. My job as a Senator is to gather as much information as I can to make the best-informed decision. The allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh are disturbing and credible. In the interest of getting as much information as possible, I believe the allegations should be investigated by the FBI. I have deep reservations about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to this lifetime position and, as I stated, we have been unable to get all the information necessary regarding this nomination, despite my best efforts. Only 113 people have ever served on the Supreme Court, and I believe that we must do our level best to protect its sanctity. While I would gladly welcome the opportunity to work with President Trump on a new nominee for this critically important position, if Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination comes before the full Senate for a vote under these circumstances, I will oppose it.

We hope that today’s “READERS FORUM” will provoke honest and open dialogue concerning issues that we, as responsible citizens of this community, need to address in a rational and responsible way? WHATS ON YOUR MIND TODAY? 

WHATS ON YOUR MIND TODAY?

Todays“Readers Poll” question is: If the 2019 City Council At-Large election was held today, what three (3) potential candidates would you vote for?

If you would like to advertise on the CCO please contact us City-CountyObserver@live.com

Katie Stancombe for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a child in need of services determination based on the Department of Child Services’ agreement that reversal was required because there was insufficient evidence to prove a mother’s marijuana use ever harmed her minor child.

At the time of his birth in Nov. 2017, both B.V. and his mother tested positive for THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana. That same month, DCS filed a petition alleging that B.V. was a CHINS after hospital staff reported concerns for mother’s mental health.

A family caseworker testified that mother admitted to regularly smoking marijuana during her pregnancy while knowing the effects that marijuana can have on a child, and to smoking marijuana when B.V. was in the home. When case managers and law enforcement arrived at the home for the detention, they detected a strong odor of marijuana inside, and B.V. was placed in a foster home.

After several months of improvement and successful visitations in which a supervisor found the mother to be an “a loving doting mom” and that she “took good care of him,” the Decatur Circuit Court placed B.V. with mother as an in-home CHINS. The trial court concluded it felt a CHINS determination was appropriate to make sure that Mother remained drug-free and consistent in her housing and employment.

But the appellate court found there was insufficient evidence to support the Decatur Circuit Court’s CHINS determination, and DCS agreed that reversal was required.

“(T)there is no evidence that Mother had any difficulty in meeting B.V.’s needs and that there were no findings that B.V. had any unmet needs. It asserts that the trial court’s only concern was that Mother was young and could backslide, which does not satisfy the statutory dictates,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the court.

“DCS concedes that there was no evidence that Mother’s marijuana use ever harmed B.V. and her visitation supervisor thought Mother did very well at visits and was loving and doting.”

The appellate court also added that in light of the overwhelming number of Indiana CHINS cases, “all would be better served if the system focused its time, efforts, and resources on the families who really need them. This one did not.”

The case is In re the Matter of B.V., Minor Child, and D.V., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 18A-JC-988.