IN Code § 31-34-21-7 (2021)
2021 Indiana Code|Title 31. Family Law and Juvenile Law|Article 34. Juvenile Law: Children in Need of Services|Chapter 21. Review of Dispositional Decrees; Formal Review Hearings|31-34-21-7. Permanency Hearing

Sec. 7. (a) The court shall hold a permanency hearing:(1) not more than thirty (30) days after a court finds that reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve a child's family are not required as described in section 5.6 of this chapter;(2) every twelve (12) months after:(A) the date of the original dispositional decree; or(B) a child in need of services was removed from the child's parent, guardian, or custodian;whichever comes first; or(3) more often if ordered by the juvenile court.(b) The court shall:(1) make the determination and findings required by section 5 of this chapter;(2) consider the question of continued jurisdiction and whether the dispositional decree should be modified;(3) consider recommendations of persons listed under section 4 of this chapter, before approving a permanency plan under subdivision (5);(4) consult with the child in person, or through an interview with or written statement or report submitted by:(A) a guardian ad litem or court appointed special advocate for the child;(B) a case manager; or(C) the person with whom the child is living and who has primary responsibility for the care and supervision of the child;in an age appropriate manner as determined by the court, regarding the proposed permanency plan;(5) consider and approve a permanency plan for the child that complies with the requirements set forth in section 7.5 of this chapter;(6) determine whether an existing permanency plan must be modified; and(7) examine procedural safeguards used by the department to protect parental rights.(c) If the child is at least sixteen (16) years of age and the proposed permanency plan provides for another planned permanent living arrangement, the court shall, at each permanency hearing, do all the following:(1) Require the department to provide notice of the permanency hearing to the child, in accordance with section 4(a) of this chapter.(2) Provide to the child an opportunity to be heard and to make recommendations to the court, in accordance with section 4(d) of this chapter.(3) Require the department to document or provide testimony regarding the intensive, ongoing, and, as of the date of the hearing, unsuccessful efforts made by the department to return the child home or secure a placement for the child with a fit and willing relative, legal guardian, or adoptive parent, including efforts through the use of search technology, such as social media, to find biological or adoptive family members for the child.(4) Ask the child about the desired permanency outcome for the child and document the child's response.(5) Make a judicial determination explaining why, as of the date of the hearing, another planned permanent living arrangement is the best permanency plan for the child and provide compelling reasons why it continues to not be in the best interests of the child to:(A) return home;(B) be placed for adoption;(C) be placed with a legal guardian; or(D) be placed with a fit and willing relative.(6) Require the department to document or provide testimony regarding the steps the department is taking to ensure that:(A) the child's foster family home, group home, secure private facility, or child caring institution is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard; and(B) the child has regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age or developmentally appropriate activities, including consulting with the child in an age appropriate manner about the opportunities for the child to participate in the activities.(d) There is a rebuttable presumption that jurisdiction over the child in a child in need of services proceeding continues for not longer than twelve (12) months after the date of the original dispositional decree or twelve (12) months after the child in need of services was removed from the child's parent, guardian, or custodian, whichever occurs first. The state may rebut the presumption and show that jurisdiction should continue by proving that the objectives of the dispositional decree have not been accomplished, that a continuation of the decree with or without any modifications is necessary, and that it is in the child's best interests for the court to maintain its jurisdiction over the child. If the department does not sustain its burden for continued jurisdiction, the court shall:(1) direct the department to establish a permanency plan within thirty (30) days; or(2) discharge the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.The court may retain jurisdiction to the extent necessary to carry out any orders under subdivision (1).[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-4-19(c).]As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.35-1998, SEC.16; P.L.1-1999, SEC.63; P.L.14-2000, SEC.64; P.L.145-2006, SEC.322; P.L.138-2007, SEC.74; P.L.72-2008, SEC.4; P.L.104-2015, SEC.40.