Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-34-9-1 (2026)

Request for authorization to file petition; representation of interests of state; deadlines and procedures

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 1. (a) The attorney for the department:

(1) may request the juvenile court to authorize the filing of a petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services; and

(2) shall represent the interests of the state at this proceeding and at all subsequent proceedings on the petition.

(b) A prosecuting attorney:

(1) may request the juvenile court to authorize the filing of a petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services under IC 31-34-1; and

(2) shall represent the interests of the state at this proceeding and at all subsequent proceedings on the petition, unless the prosecuting attorney and the department agree that the department shall represent the interests of the state at this proceeding and at all subsequent proceedings on the petition.

(c) If a prosecuting attorney is representing the interests of the state at a subsequent proceeding after a petition is filed under this section, all deadlines and procedures concerning children in need of services under this article apply to the prosecuting attorney to the same extent as they apply to the department.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-4-10(a).]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.145-2006, SEC.294; P.L.146-2008, SEC.588; P.L.236-2013, SEC.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014). · cites it 2× “Similarly, the filing of a CHINS petition— seeking treatment, care, or rehabilitation through coercive intervention of a court— is a DCS (or prosecutor) responsibility, see Ind.Code § 31-34-9-1 (2008), and the scope of any resulting care, treatment, or rehabilitation is a…”

In Re: The Matter of A.H., & S.H., Minor Child., V.H., Mother v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 992 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Code §§ 31-34-9 , provide that DCS must request the juvenile court to authorize the filing of a CHINS petition, see Ind. Code § 31-34-9-1 , that the juvenile court shall consider the inquiry “and the evidence of probable cause that is contained in the report of the preliminary…”

In Re Tb, 895 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-9-1. The juvenile court must "[a]uthorize the filing of a petition if it finds probable cause to believe that the child is a" CHINS.”

Bailey v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., 895 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-9-1. The juvenile court must “[ajuthorize the filing of a petition if it finds probable cause to believe that the child is a” CHINS.”

Marion Cnty. Div. of Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. v. Melinger, 878 N.E.2d 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Code § 31-34-4-2(b)(2) and Ind.Code § 31-34-9-1(2); however, neither of those sections governs when an order is deemed a final judgment.”

In re the Matter of: R.H. (Minor Child) & T.H. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Servs., 55 N.E.3d 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-9-1. The juvenile court must authorize the filing of a petition if it finds probable cause to believe the child is a CHINS.”

A.B. v. Holcomb (N.D. Ind. 2024). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 31-34-9-1 . Once DCS substantiates an allegation, it may initiate a CHINS proceeding by filing a petition with a trial court, and the CHINS court normally must hold a hearing within ten days, Ind.”

— Ind. Code § 31-34-9-1(2) — 1 case

Marion Cnty. Div. of Indiana Dep't of Child Servs. v. Melinger, 878 N.E.2d 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Code § 31-34-4-2(b)(2) and Ind.Code § 31-34-9-1(2); however, neither of those sections governs when an order is deemed a final judgment.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.