Court Opinion

ID: 9720271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:23:48.784745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:15.038455
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring in result.
Although I agree with the majority that the legislature cannot restrict a court’s review of the constitutionality of an administrative agency’s actions, I write separately to express my concern regarding the majority’s discussion of In re P.J., 575 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct.App.1991) (Baker, J., dissenting), and Matter of H.L.K, 666 N.E.2d 80 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trans. granted.
As the majority notes, both P.J. and H.L.K discussed the tension between the powers granted to the school board by the legislature and the powers of juvenile courts. Specifically, we were asked to determine whether a juvenile court had the authority to issue an order requiring a student to attend school when the school board had already issued an order expelling that student. Although the majority in P.J. determined that the powers given to the juvenile courts should prevail, we held in H.L.K. that the legislature’s changes to IND. CODE § 20-8.1-5.1-15 evidenced an intent to return' the balance of power to the schools. However, the decision in H.L.K, which I authored for the majority, did not address the limits or constitutionality of the legislature’s changes to the statute. As such, I believe that the decision is irrelevant to the instant case. Therefore, while I appreciate the majority’s scholarship, I cannot embrace this portion of the opinion. In all other respects, however, I concur.