Ind. Code ch. 31-34-12

in effect

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-1 Burden of proof of delinquent act or crime

Sec. 1. A finding by a juvenile court that a child committed a delinquent act, or that an adult committed a crime must be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(a) part.] As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-2 Burden of proof in proceedings to terminate parental rights

Sec. 2. Except as provided in IC 31-35-2-4.5(d), a finding in a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence. [Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(a) part.] As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.35-1998, SEC.8.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 Burden of proof in other cases

Sec. 3. A finding not covered by section 1 or 2 of this chapter must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence. [Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(a) part.] As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-4 Presumption that child is child in need of services

Sec. 4. A rebuttable presumption is raised that the child is a child in need of services because of an act or omission of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian if the state introduces competent evidence of probative value that: (1) the child has been injured; (2) at the time the child was injured, the parent, guardian, or custodian: (A) had the care, custody, or control of the child; or (B) had legal responsibility for the care, custody, or control of the child; (3) the injury would not ordinarily be sustained except for the act or omission of a parent, guardian, or custodian; and (4) there is a reasonable probability that the injury was not accidental. [Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(b).] As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.48-2012, SEC.60.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-4.5 Presumption that child is child in need of services if child resides with adult who has committed or been charged with specified acts

Sec. 4.5. (a) There is a rebuttable presumption that a child is a child in need of services if the state establishes that the child lives in the same household as an adult who: (1) committed an offense described in IC 31-34-1-2, IC 31-34-1-3, or IC 31-34-1-3.5 against a child and the offense resulted in a conviction or a judgment under IC 31-34-11-2; (2) has been charged with an offense described in IC 31-34-1-2, IC 31-34-1-3, or IC 31-34-1-3.5 against a child and is awaiting trial; or (3) was a perpetrator of a child fatality or near fatality as described by IC 31-33-18-1.5. (b) The following may not be used as grounds to rebut the presumption under subsection (a): (1) The child who is the victim of the offense described in IC 31-34-1-2 or IC 31-34-1-3 is not genetically related to the adult who committed the act, but the child presumed to be the child in need of services under this section is genetically related to the adult who committed the act. (2) The child who is the victim of the offense described in IC 31-34-1-2 or IC 31-34-1-3 differs in age from the child presumed to be the child in need of services under this section. (c) This section does not affect the ability to take a child into custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2 if the act of taking the child into custody or emergency custody is not based upon a presumption established under this section. However, if the presumption established under this section is the sole basis for taking a child into custody or emergency custody under IC 31-34-2, the court first must find cause to take the child into custody or emergency custody following a hearing in which the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is accorded the rights described in IC 31-34-4-6(a)(2) through IC 31-34-4-6(a)(5). As added by P.L.18-2004, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.16-2016, SEC.2; P.L.46-2016, SEC.13; P.L.71-2018, SEC.2; P.L.70-2024, SEC.3.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-4.6 Circumstances creating rebuttable presumption that child is in need of services

Sec. 4.6. (a) There is a rebuttable presumption that a child is a child in need of services if the court finds that the child lives in the same household as an adult who is subject to an order requiring the adult to participate in a program of care, treatment, or rehabilitation under IC 31-34-20-3. (b) There is a rebuttable presumption that a child is a child in need of services if the court finds that the child's parent, guardian, or custodian willfully or knowingly: (1) exposed the child to the illegal manufacture or distribution of a legend drug or controlled substance; or (2) exposed the child to: (A) methamphetamine; (B) fentanyl; or (C) a fentanyl containing substance (as defined by IC 35-48-1.1-19); for which the parent, guardian, or custodian did not have a valid prescription. As added by P.L.179-2025, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.23-2026, SEC.266.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-5 Admissibility of evidence of prior or subsequent acts or omissions

Sec. 5. Evidence that a prior or subsequent act or omission by a parent, guardian, or custodian injured or neglected a child is admissible in proceedings alleging that a child is a child in need of services to show the following: (1) Intent, guilty knowledge, the absence of mistake or accident, identification, the existence of a common scheme or plan, or other similar purposes. (2) A likelihood that the act or omission of the parent, guardian, or custodian is responsible for the child's current injury or condition. [Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(c).] As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.128-2012, SEC.160.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-6 Admissibility of privileged communications

Sec. 6. Neither: (1) the physician-patient privilege; nor (2) the husband-wife privilege; is grounds for excluding evidence in a proceeding in which the child is alleged to be a child in need of services. [Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(d).] As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-7 Failure to submit to drug or alcohol test

Sec. 7. (a) For purposes of an assessment by the department, if: (1) a parent, guardian, or custodian had care, custody, and control of the child immediately before the child died; (2) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department had probable cause to believe the parent, guardian, or custodian was impaired, intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol immediately before or at the time of the child's death; (3) a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department requests, not later than three (3) hours after the death of the child, the parent, guardian, or custodian to submit to a drug or alcohol screen test; and (4) the parent, guardian, or custodian did not submit to a drug or alcohol screen test within three (3) hours after the request by a law enforcement officer or an employee of the department; the failure to submit to the drug or alcohol test may be used to determine that the parent, guardian, or custodian was intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the child's death for the purpose of the determination required under IC 31-33-8-12. (b) Evidence from a drug or alcohol screen test administered under this section is not admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding. As added by P.L.131-2009, SEC.63.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-8 Evidence of financial inability to supply food, clothing, or shelter

Sec. 8. A court may find that a child is not a child in need of services under IC 31-34-1-1 if the court finds, based on credible evidence presented by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian, that the parent, guardian, or custodian: (1) is financially unable to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, or shelter; and (2) has not failed, refused, or demonstrated an inability to seek financial or other reasonable means to do so. As added by P.L.210-2019, SEC.8.

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-9 Rebuttable presumption to prohibit in person contact with child

Sec. 9. If: (1) a child is the subject of a petition alleging that the child is a child in need of services; and (2) a parent of the child has been convicted of committing: (A) aggravated battery (IC 35-42-2-1.5); (B) strangulation (IC 35-42-2-9); or (C) neglect of a dependent under IC 35-46-1-4(b)(2) or IC 35-46-1-4(b)(3); against the child; there is a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child's best interests to prohibit the parent from having in person contact with the child until a dispositional decree is entered or the petition is dismissed. As added by P.L.244-2023, SEC.10.

Source: Open US Law by Vaquill AI (CC BY 4.0)URL: https://iga.in.gov/laws/2026/ic/titles/31Fetched: 10/17/2026