to be t tiation of delinquency proceedings have evolved over the years. Additionally, cases interpreting and applying the statutes have listed the statutory prerequisites to jurisdiction in various ways. One constant requirement, however, has been that the juvenile court must authorize the filing of a delinquency petition. See Taylor v. State, 438 N.E.2d 275, 277 (Ind.1982) (concluding that a determination by the juvenile court that it will assume jurisdiction and the filing of a formal petition of delinquency, pursuant to the court's authorization, are necessary prerequisites to the acquisition of jurisdiction) (citing Duty v. State, 169 Ind.App. 621, 349 N.E.2d 729 (1976); Shupe, 127 Ind.App. at 300-01, 141 N.E.2d at 855; Seay v. State, 167 Ind.App. 22, 37, 887 N.E.2d 489, 498 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Collins v. State, 540 N.E.2d 85, 86
holding that the order of the juvenile court authorizing the filing of a delinquency petition is one of the essential documents needed when considering a challenge to juvenile jurisdiction holding juvenile court under statutes then in effect could not acquire jurisdiction in delinquency proceeding in the absence of a delinquency petition filed by the probation officer under an order of the court authorizing the same holding that although the juvenile restitution statute does not expressly require the juvenile court to determine whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the restitution ordered as a condition of probation the policies underlying the adult restitutions command that a trial court make such an inquiry applies with equal force to juvenile courts holding juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over a grandparents deprivation petition where petition was a transparent attempt to use the juvenile court system to seek custody of the child holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims