A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning family law and juvenile law.
SB 111 establishes minimum statewide visitation standards for youth held in juvenile detention facilities and juvenile detention centers, effective July 1, 2026. The bill requires facilities to offer in-person contact visitation with a resident’s parent, guardian, custodian, court-approved supportive person, and the resident’s own child. It also requires at least two in-person contact visits per week, each lasting at least one hour, unless extraordinary safety or security conditions make that impossible.
The bill also requires at least two telephone calls per week with the same categories of people, with each call lasting at least 10 minutes, and directs facilities to provide notice of visitation and call schedules. If in-person visitation cannot occur, facilities must document the reason, notify family or visitors, and make reasonable efforts to arrange audiovisual visitation instead. The bill limits monitoring of in-person visits to situations involving reasonable suspicion of crime, escape, or threats to safety, and prohibits charging residents or visitors for the required visits and calls. It also clarifies that facilities are not required to provide transportation or electronic devices to visitors, and that the new section sets a minimum standard without preventing facilities from offering more visitation or incentives.
In addition, SB 111 amends the statute governing juvenile detention centers to require operation in accordance with the new visitation standards. It preserves existing oversight by the Department of Correction and annual inspection/reporting duties by the Department of Child Services. The bill therefore affects juvenile detention facilities, detention center administrators, detained youth, and their families by creating enforceable baseline access rights and procedural requirements.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s structure is supportive of family connection and youth rehabilitation, with an emphasis on maintaining relationships during detention. Although no committee testimony or votes are provided, the bill’s detailed visitation guarantees suggest a policy preference for greater access and consistency for detained youth and their families. The inclusion of safety exceptions and documentation requirements indicates an effort to balance access with institutional security.
The main points of contention likely center on operational burden, security, and staffing. Facilities may object to the required frequency and duration of visits, the limits on monitoring, and the prohibition on charging for services, while supporters would likely emphasize the importance of family contact for youth well-being and reentry. The bill attempts to address these concerns by allowing exceptions for extraordinary safety risks, permitting cancellation when necessary, and not requiring facilities to provide transportation or devices.
SB 111 would add a new section to Indiana Code chapter 31-31-8 establishing minimum visitation rights for juveniles in detention and would require juvenile detention centers to comply with those standards under IC 31-31-9-3. It creates new duties for detention facilities to schedule, document, notify, and, when needed, substitute audiovisual visitation, while also restricting when visits may be monitored, revoked, or charged for. The bill would directly affect juvenile detention facilities, detained youth, parents, guardians, custodians, court-approved supportive visitors, and detained youth’s children.
The bill appears generally favorable toward expanding family access and maintaining connections for detained youth. Its design suggests a rehabilitative and family-supportive approach, while still acknowledging security concerns through exceptions and documentation requirements. No recorded committee debate or votes are provided, so sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s provisions rather than from legislative discussion.
Likely areas of contention include the cost and staffing demands of providing two one-hour in-person visits and two phone calls each week, the restriction on charging for visitation-related services, and the limits on monitoring or canceling visits. Juvenile detention administrators and correctional staff may be concerned about security and operational flexibility, while advocates for youth and families would likely support the bill’s stronger access requirements and protections against unnecessary restrictions.