Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-41-2-5 (2026)

Dual status team considerations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 5. The dual status assessment team shall consider the child's best interests and well-being, including:

(1) the child's mental health, including any diagnosis;

(2) the child's school records, including attendance and achievement level;

(3) the child's statements;

(4) the statements of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian;

(5) the impact of the child's behavior on any victim;

(6) the safety of the community;

(7) the child's needs, strengths, and risks;

(8) the need for a parent participation plan;

(9) the efficacy and availability of services and community providers;

(10) whether appropriate supervision of the child can be achieved by the dismissal of a delinquency adjudication in deference to a child in need of services adjudication;

(11) whether appropriate supervision of the child can be achieved by combining a delinquency adjudication or informal adjustment with a child in need of services petition;

(12) the child's placement needs;

(13) restorative justice practices that may be appropriate;

(14) whether a child in need of services petition or informal adjustment should be filed or dismissed;

(15) whether a delinquency petition or informal adjustment should be filed or dismissed;

(16) the availability of coordinated services regardless of whether the child is adjudicated to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child;

(17) whether the team recommends the exercise of dual adjudication and the lead agency to provide supervision of the child; and

(18) any other information considered appropriate by the team.

As added by P.L.66-2015, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.149-2016, SEC.84.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2013–2013 · leading case: Bradley D. Benard v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev. & Rolls-Royce Corp., 997 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Bradley D. Benard v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev. & Rolls-Royce Corp., 997 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 31-41-2-5. Thus, Benard’s defense he claims was overlooked, in fact, does not exist.”
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.