Owen Circuit Court II not eliminated

Owen County residents raised a ruckus in an effort to prevent the Indiana General Assembly from eliminating Circuit Court II.

Judge Kelsey Hanlon presides over Circuit Court II and has since its creation.

Residents were first alerted to there being an issue following a post from Circuit Court I Judge Donald Van Der Moere on April 11. With that post Van Der Moere said that he and Hanlon had learned that a bill had passed through a committee to eliminate Circuit Court II.

"If you care about your court system in Owen County and its impact on our local citizens, we implore you to contact our representatives at the State and let your voice be heard," the post read.

That post was then shared by County Councilman Anton Neff.

"As the Indiana Legislature is nearing the end of their session, a recent development concerning the judicial system here in Owen County has raised cause for concern. For many years, we have operated under a unified circuit court system, with Judge Donald Van Der Moere II serving Circuit Court I and Judge Kelsey Hanlon serving Circuit Court II. House Bill #1144 currently working its way through the state legislative process, was recently amended by the Senate Appropriations Committee to, simply put, abolish Circuit Court II by Dec. 31, 2026," Neff added when sharing the Facebook post.

"Overall, this weakens the judicial system and its service to our community. Higher case volumes, impaired response times and delayed actions were precisely what we worked to fix for years and finally were successful with, beginning 10 years ago when the second court was created. The efficient and responsive operation of our courts and court programs are in jeopardy. If you value and support the variety of court services we have in our county, I recommend that you read Judge Van Der Moere's recently published post here and contact all three of the state legislators that represent our county."

Prior to the creation of Circuit Court II, Owen County had a judge, a half-time paid state referee position and a child support commissioner, according to Hanlon.

"We kept the commissioner position for a couple years, but just didn't find that our weighted caseload justified it. And you know, we were getting credit on the weighted caseload for having, you know, a judicial officer doing a third of the caseload," Hanlon said, adding that the commissioner could only hear a small portion of cases.

Hanlon was first elected in 2014 after beating Terry L. English in the primary and running unopposed in the general election. She ran again in 2020 and her current term ends at the end of 2026.

"I knew that it was a possibility that they would eliminate courts when they did. They've been talking about it for a long time, and I know it was mentioned at an interim study committee that they believe that there were basically the right number of judicial officers in Indiana. So if they're going to give them to places, they're going to take them away from underutilized places," Hanlon said. "I never dreamed we would be on that list, because our overall weighted caseload and our historic weighted caseload just do not justify it."

From Hanlon's understanding, the legislature used the 2023 weighted caseload in the decision-making.

"If they were to take my court away, [Circuit Court I Judge] Don [Van Der Moere] would immediately be at like a 1.4 [utilization] which is higher or comparable to the places where they're giving [other] counties judges," Hanlon said. "So, like this idea that we were on notice, I think, is not accurate. I mean, we knew that there was a possibility that it would happen. But in terms of understanding that we were possibly going to be included in this... I was shocked by being included."

Hanlon explained that a weighted caseload is a way of measuring judicial workload.

According to the Indiana Supreme Court website, the system was created in 1996. The goal is that the utilization is at 1.0, meaning that the judge does the work load of only one judge. Anything below 1.0 is considered underutilization, and anything above is considered overutilization.

The weighted case load is updated periodically through a caseload study where judges keep track of time on every single type of case.

"As part of the weighted caseload assessment studies completed in 1996, 2002 and 2009 only a sample of judicial officers from around the state participated in the study. During the most recent studies completed in 2016 and 2024, every judicial officer in the state was asked to participate," the Indiana Supreme Court website reads.

Time and credit for the workload is also included for administrative responsibilities. Each type of case is given an estimated number of minutes for that particular type of case, based on the caseload study.

As cases are filed, the judicial officer gets credit for the case.

Each type of case gets the same amount of time for the same type of case across the state, regardless of the county.

"It's a hard number to pin down... Just because of the way cases are filed and the way that a case could be filed and dismissed. I'll use CHINS (Child in Need of Services) cases as an example, because I think it's salient," Hanlon said. "I'm not exactly sure what the [caseload] figure is, but it's not that high. But the reason it's not that high is because sometimes they get filed and they get dismissed before you do anything with them. So on that one off, sensibly, you've done zero minutes, versus the ones that stay open for five years... it's just trying to kind of capture a fair snapshot."

Severity of need statistics apply only to new case filings in each court.

There is also a temporary adjusted weighted caseload. This report also adds to the court's total minutes the cases in which the reporting judge assumed jurisdiction as a special judge in other courts. It adds to the court's total minutes the venued in and transferred in cases. It subtracts from the court's total minutes the number of cases in which another judge assumed jurisdiction as a special judge in the reporting court. It also subtracts from the court's total minutes the venued out and transferred out cases.

The 2023 amended severity of need by county, which used the new case weights from 2024, placed Hamilton, Shelby and Vigo Counties at the top with respective utilizations of 1.34, 1.34 and 1.33, respectively. It placed Owen County at number 80 with a utilization of 0.66.

The last ranking county was Union County with a utilization of 0.35 and one judicial officer. Brown County ranked second to last with a utilization of 0.41 and two judicial officers.

In 2023, the overall state utilization was 0.98.

The 2023 amended weighted caseload measures show Owen Circuit I with a utilization of 0.48 and Owen Circuit II with a utilization of 0.84.

In 2024, Vigo, Hamilton and Allen Counties as the top three in severity of need, with respective utilizations of 1.43, 1.38 and 1.36.

In 2024, Owen County ranked 78 out of Indiana's 92 counties with an average utilization of 0.70. Circuit Court I had a utilization of 0.63, and Circuit Court II had a utilization of 0.76

Comparatively, the two lowest-ranking counties, Brown and Ohio, each had an average utilization of 0.40.

"We have been solidly in the realm of needing two judges since before the second [circuit] court was created. That was why we got it, because we needed two courts. And the legislature determined that we needed two courts and gave us two courts. And then, so we've been solidly at, like, a 1.7, 1.8," Hanlon said. "Both courts are doing plenty of work."

Hanlon believes that is an ideal utilization.

"It's almost the perfect number, in my opinion, that 0.8, 0.9, because you can absorb weird increases in case filings, if they happen. But you're not so low that you need to justify your existence," Hanlon said. "To me, that's kind of the utilization sweet sweet spot, because we don't have any control over how many criminal cases get filed. We don't have any control over how many CHINS cases get filed, and the fluctuations can be huge, depending on what's going."

Hanlon said other civil filings, which are predominantly heard by Circuit Court II, are reliable and more population-driven. However, she noted changes to policy and those holding certain elected offices can change the number of filings.

A special judge can be attained by one of two ways. The first way is that both parties can agree on a judge and the judge can accept it. If the parties agree and the judge does not accept it or if the parties cannot agree, the case goes to a district facilitator who assigns it to a judge unless that judge has a conflict of interest.

"The ones that I have all in the far-flung parts of the state that aren't in our judicial district are ones that I've gotten by agreement," Hanlon said. "It's flattering, you typically accept them."

Hanlon said she communicated with legislators when she found out Circuit Court II was added to the list of courts to eliminate through an amendment.

The amendment was later removed during a conference committee between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

"With our input and the favorable negotiation among legislators, the final version of the bill had the adverse language removed, thus preserving Owen Circuit Court II in our county. Without it, we would have gone 10 years back in time to a high case volume and delayed judicial actions. We thank everyone who spoke up and appreciate our state legislators for listening and most important, taking the right action," Neff posted to Facebook after the amendment was removed.

Senator Rod Bray, who represents part of Owen County and is President Pro Tempore of the Indiana Senate, explained the process.

"Every committee that hears a bill can change it and amend it, and it happens all the time. And so now I will say this one was a little bit unusual and probably didn't happen exactly the way it should," Bray said.

He referenced a formal process for analyzing which areas need additional judicial officers using the weighted caseload information.

"Typically, every two years, we take a look at this, and we add judges across the state in counties where weighted caseload suggests they need another [judicial officer.] But over the course of the last couple years, Senator [Liz] Brown, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, started a conversation with the Supreme Court to say, look, as we continue to add judges around the state, we also need to take a look at whether counties are overrepresented," Bray said.

The cost for judges are shared by the counties and the state. The state pays the salary of the judge while the county pays for the physical office, office supplies and any salaries for court staff.

"And so that was, I think, what Senator Brown was doing in this circumstance. So I will grant you, while it's very difficult for bills to be amended in whatever committee that they're in, is a perfect situation in this kind of a case, because we've got judges that this is their livelihood. They ought to have ability to have some ability to come up to the state navigate suggests why their court shouldn't be cut, why the numbers may be aren't representative or whatever the case may be," Bray said. "That didn't happen in this process, and that is the large reason why we kind of moved that amendment back."

In the counties where courts were eliminated in the final version of the bill, Bray said that many were retiring. He said they try to do it as it fits in with the judge's plans through attrition.

He explained that it is common for the appropriations committee to add amendments when the bill has a fiscal note on it. Bills receive a fiscal note when implementing them costs the state more than $100,000. For the House, the equivalent committee is called ways and means. Bray explained that this allows those committees to incorporate the expense into the budget.

"Owen County only has two judges, and so at this point, the judges aren't as busy as some judges, but because they only have two, if you take one away, then all of a sudden then that one judge is pretty busy, so that was problematic," Bray said. "That's one of the reasons we kind of rolled that back because you get the potential to take that judge away, then immediately they're kind of back in the conversation of do they need another judge added.

"It's better to do this even in the summer, long before the session actually begins, so those conversations can happen in full, and the judges that might be in the conversation to get cut can come in and really talk about why it's necessary that they remain," Bray said. "But we'll make better decisions if we do it that way, and I think you will see us do it that way in the future, because that's a better way to do it."

Senator Eric Bassler, who represents the other half of Owen County and serves on the appropriations committee, did not vote on the amendment coming from the appropriations committee on April 10.

The bill with the amendments from the Senate was called for a vote on April 15. Bray voted in favor of the bill, and Bassler voted against it.

Those amendments were not accepted by the House, which was the house of origin for the bill. This sent it to conference committee, which is where the language eliminating Circuit Court II was removed.

On April 24, the conference committee report from the Senate shows Bray voting in favor and Bassler not voting. The conference committee report from the House shows Representative Bob Heaton, who also represents Owen County, voting in favor of it.

The final version of the bill limits the judges in Marion County juvenile courts to no more than 11 magistrates. It eliminates one court each in Blackford County and Monroe County. It also eliminates a magistrate in Jennings County. It allows the judges of the Elkhart circuit and superior courts to appoint four full-time magistrates. It also adds two superior courts to Hamilton County, and it allows the judge of Lawrence County's juvenile court to appoint not more than one full-time magistrate. Finally, it allows the judges of the Vigo circuit and superior courts to jointly appoint one magistrate.