Magistrate Chris Doran told the Jennings County Commissioners on a recent meeting that the referee/magistrate position helped speed child-welfare cases and produced measurable county savings, and he asked the board to create a permanent refereeing position funded without additional local tax dollars.

Doran said that as of Sept. 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court had 509 cases pending and that the new hearing schedule he implemented reduced the county’s median days-to-permanency in children-in-need-of-services cases from 866 days in 2020 to 309 days. “This is a reduction of 64.5% from where Jennings County was,” Doran said, adding the change came from increased judicial oversight and more frequent review and permanency hearings.

The magistrate presented a packet of data and said he had secured approximately $170,000 in grant funding that would cover roughly $85,000 a year for two years for the position. He proposed covering remaining costs from the county’s Title IV‑D incentive fund (referred to in the meeting as fund 88‑95) and from restricted opioid-settlement funds. “This would be approximately $85,000 a year for a two year period. It’s my understanding that these funds are specifically for me to serve as a referee,” he said.

The clerk of courts (identified in the meeting as Amy) responded that Title IV‑D incentive funds are federal funds subject to a cooperative agreement with the state and “can only be used for child-support enforcement purposes.” She said her office had not been part of the funding conversations and warned that using the 88‑95 funds without the required state cooperative agreement could constitute misuse of federal funds.

Former Circuit Court Judge John Webster and Jamie Greathouse of Advocates for Children spoke in favor of retaining the magistrate position. Webster said rising caseloads and modern court duties justify additional judicial support. Greathouse said the magistrate had significantly shortened children’s time in foster care and that recent state law changes (she referenced House Bill 1605) will increase hearings requested by CASA and others, increasing the need for judicial availability.

Commissioners discussed alternatives and the limits of county budgeting. One commissioner said he would support the position only if “no additional funds come out of the taxpayer’s pocket,” and suggested a one‑year probationary funding window rather than two years. Another commissioner said the presented time‑study numbers can be skewed year‑to‑year by the types of cases filed and urged caution in relying on a single data slice.

After public comments and discussion among commissioners, a motion was made “to leave it as it stands” — i.e., to keep the board’s prior decision in place. The motion was seconded; one commissioner explicitly recorded a no vote and asked for two additional weeks to review the materials, but the motion carried per the meeting record.

The commissioners also instructed staff to pursue the cooperative agreement process and to bring clearer, documented funding options back to the board if they can secure state cooperation or if the J‑RAC (opioid settlement advisory body mentioned in the discussion) approves using settlement funds for the position.

Doran asked to continue presenting quarterly reports that would allow the commissioners to reassess whether the position should be continued after grant funds ran out. “Allow me to come in to present a report of all the good work that we’re doing and see whether or not it makes sense to continue,” he said.

The meeting record shows commissioners did not finalize a new appropriation at that time and tied further action to documented funding arrangements and state cooperative agreements.