placement warning in Indiana

1995Peavler, supra, at 47 .

1989Peqviler, supra, 528 N.E.2d at 47 .

1988He cites Peavler v. Board of Comm'rs (1986), Ind.App., 492 N.E.2d 1086 , (Neal, J., dissenting), as support for his argument.

1986Id., at 1089-90 .

2019We will overturn a dispositional order only if we determine the court "abused its discretion because its conclusion and judgment are clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Id. [21] L.C. argues more specifically that the DOC is not the least restrictive placement and, as such, the placement is in violation the requirements of Ind. Code section 31-37-18-6, and therefore an abuse of discretion.

2019L.C. cites D.P. v. State , 783 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), in support.

2001"Ind.Code § 31-37-22-5 applies to runaways who are placed in a shelter care facility or other residence pursuant to a court order and then violate the terms of the placement." 741 N.E.2d at 729 .

2001In Holiday Rambler, the State acknowledged that there was no evidence to establish that it had "ever engaged in a policy oriented decision making process with respect to the placement of warning signs," but because there was "no evidence in the record that the State failed to exercise adequate traffic engineering in the placement of highway warning signs or that the absence of warning signs contributed to cause the collision, summary judgment on that count was proper." 541 N.E.2d at 564 . 14 .

1998As we stated in Million, supra, the language in Indiana Code § 35-38-2.6-5(3) which allows the court to revoke the placement after a hearing means that “only the trial court may revoke the placement for a violation of those terms.

1998Program personnel may not make that decision subject merely to judicial review.” Million, 646 N.E.2d at 1002 .

1995Board of Comm'rs of Adams County v. Price (1992), Ind.App., 587 N.E.2d 1326, 1330 , trans. denied (Adams County not immune under discretionary function immunity for failure to show a policy oriented decision-making process in regard to placement of traffic signs at *100 unmarked, rural intersections).