Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

Terry Break was convicted in 2021 of multiple child sexual abuse offenses, including rape, second-degree sexual assault, and sexual indecency with a child, involving three minor victims. He received six life sentences plus 488 years in prison and $425,000 in fines. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Break then filed a Rule 37 petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds.The Boone County Circuit Court denied Break's petition. The court found that the State had provided sufficient evidence of "sexual gratification or desire" for the offenses, and thus, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge this element. The court also found that the prosecutor's comment during closing arguments, referring to Break as a "proven liar," was based on Break's own admissions and was not improper. Additionally, the court determined that the prosecutor's opening statement did not shift the burden of proof, as it referred to Break's demeanor during a recorded interview rather than his silence at trial. Lastly, the court acknowledged that the prosecutor's biblical reference during closing arguments was improper but concluded that Break failed to show that trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Break failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of his trial. The court emphasized that Break did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of ineffective assistance and that the decisions made by his trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional judgment. View "BREAK v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

A juvenile court in a dependency proceeding granted a restraining order requested by a mother, K.B., against her 17-year-old dependent child, D.B. The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services had received multiple referrals over the years concerning D.B.'s well-being due to alleged abuse and neglect by the mother. D.B. had a history of physical altercations with her mother and was placed in protective custody after her mother refused to allow her back home following an arrest for assault.The Santa Clara County Superior Court assumed jurisdiction over D.B. and declared her a dependent child. The court adopted a case plan that included supervised visitation with the mother. However, D.B. struggled in her placement and exhibited behavioral issues. The mother later requested termination of reunification services, which the court granted with D.B.'s agreement.Subsequently, the mother filed for a restraining order against D.B., citing threats and harassment. The court issued a temporary restraining order and later a one-year restraining order after a hearing. The court found that section 213.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code authorized it to issue restraining orders against a dependent child and determined that it was in D.B.'s best interest to do so.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The appellate court held that section 213.5, subdivision (a), grants the juvenile dependency court authority to issue restraining orders against a dependent child, provided the child's best interest is considered. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order and concluded that it did not violate D.B.'s constitutional rights, as reunification services had already been terminated with D.B.'s consent. View "In re D.B." on Justia Law

A child, B.C.B., was born in a car where his parents were living. After being transported to a hospital, both B.C.B. and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The El Paso County Department of Human Services conducted a safety assessment and took temporary custody of B.C.B. due to the positive drug test. The Department filed a petition alleging that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected under Colorado law.The El Paso County District Court held an adjudicatory trial, where evidence was presented that B.C.B. had difficulty latching to breastfeed and exhibited symptoms potentially related to methamphetamine exposure. Three pediatricians testified about the potential long-term risks of methamphetamine exposure, although they could not definitively link the symptoms to the drug exposure. The jury found that B.C.B. was born affected by substance exposure and that his health or welfare was threatened by substance use. The trial court adjudicated B.C.B. as dependent or neglected and ordered continued custody with the Department.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's adjudication, concluding that the Department had not provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B. was adversely affected by substance exposure at birth. The majority held that a positive drug test alone was insufficient to establish dependency or neglect under the amended statute.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that a positive drug test at birth satisfies the first prong of the statute, indicating that the child was affected by substance exposure. The Court also found that the Department provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B.'s health or welfare was threatened by substance use, either directly or due to the mother's inability to care for the child properly. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld the jury's finding that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected. View "People ex rel. B.C.B. v. A.B." on Justia Law

Respondent, the mother of a two-year-old child named Layla, has a history of alcohol and illegal drug abuse. Both respondent and Layla tested positive for methamphetamine and THC at Layla's birth. Respondent admitted to using marijuana and unprescribed Valium on the same day she gave birth to her twin children. Layla lived with respondent and respondent's girlfriend, in a home that respondent claimed was infested with rats. A social worker from Swain County Department of Social Services (DSS) observed respondent behaving erratically and under the influence of drugs. Despite signing a safety plan that prohibited unsupervised contact with Layla, respondent violated the plan within days.The District Court of Swain County adjudicated Layla as a neglected juvenile based on respondent's continued drug abuse, erratic behavior, and failure to follow the safety plan. The court's findings included respondent's drug use, the unsafe living conditions, and the violation of the safety plan. Respondent appealed the adjudication order to the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the trial court's order, stating that the trial court's findings lacked specific factual details about how respondent's actions impaired or risked impairing Layla's welfare. The appellate court required additional findings to support the conclusion of neglect.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the conclusion of neglect. The court emphasized that while specific written findings of a substantial risk of impairment are not required, the trial court's findings must logically support the conclusion of neglect. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's findings, including respondent's drug abuse and unsafe living conditions, adequately supported the adjudication of Layla as a neglected juvenile. View "In re L.C" on Justia Law

A 16-year-old high school student was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) of cannabis following a bench trial in the circuit court of Lake County, Illinois. The student was also convicted of improper lane usage, possession of cannabis, and reckless conduct under local ordinances. The incident occurred during a driver's education class, where the instructor noticed erratic driving behavior and reported it to school officials. A subsequent search revealed a marijuana cigarette, and field sobriety tests conducted by a school resource officer and later at the police station indicated impairment.The student appealed to the Appellate Court, Second District, arguing that the Village of Lincolnshire improperly prosecuted him without providing proof of written permission from the State's Attorney, as required by the Illinois Vehicle Code. The student also contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove DUI beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no requirement for the Village to submit proof of its authority to prosecute into the trial record and determining that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the Village needed to establish its written permission to prosecute in the trial record and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the student was under the influence to a degree that rendered him incapable of driving safely. The court held that the statute did not require the Village to submit its written permission into the record and that the failure to do so did not constitute plain error. Additionally, the court found that the evidence, including testimony and field sobriety tests, supported the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, upholding the student's conviction. View "Village of Lincolnshire v. Olvera" on Justia Law

Two children in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) appealed the dismissal of guardianship petitions filed by their great-aunt and great-uncle, who reside in Pennsylvania. The Juvenile Court dismissed the petitions, citing the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), as Pennsylvania had denied the placement due to the great-uncle's felony convictions from the 1990s. The children argued that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state relatives seeking guardianship, while DCF contended that the appeal should be dismissed because the great-aunt and great-uncle, who are indispensable parties, did not appeal the dismissal.The Juvenile Court granted DCF's motion to dismiss the guardianship petitions, concluding that allowing the guardianship would violate the ICPC. The court noted that Pennsylvania's denial was based on the great-uncle's ineligibility to work or volunteer with children due to his felony convictions. The children filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed timely notices of appeal, but the great-aunt and great-uncle did not.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that the absence of the great-aunt and great-uncle, who are indispensable parties, compelled the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized that it could not proceed without the relatives, whose rights would be affected by the decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "Guardianship of Wilson" on Justia Law

A child was temporarily removed from her parents' care shortly after birth and placed in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) due to concerns about domestic violence. DCF sought to vaccinate her according to an age-based immunization schedule, but her parents, practicing Rastafarians, objected on religious grounds. A Juvenile Court judge allowed DCF to facilitate vaccinations for the child. The parents sought to stop future vaccinations, arguing that vaccinating their child over their religious objections violated their constitutional rights.The Juvenile Court judge found that the parents' religious beliefs were outweighed by the child's best interests and allowed DCF to vaccinate the child. The parents petitioned the Appeals Court for interlocutory relief, which was denied. The parents then appealed to the Appeals Court panel, and the child sought direct appellate review in the Supreme Judicial Court, which was granted.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the order allowing the child to be vaccinated violated the parents' constitutional rights. The court concluded that the parents' sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially burdened by DCF's vaccination efforts. The court applied the State constitutional protections afforded to parents exercising their free exercise rights and determined that DCF failed to demonstrate that exempting the child from vaccinations would substantially hinder the fulfillment of DCF's interests in promoting child health. The court noted the Commonwealth's allowance of religious exemptions from vaccination requirements for parents who have not lost custody and DCF's inconsistent exercise of its authority to order vaccinations for children in its care. The order allowing the joint motion by DCF and the child to facilitate the vaccination of the child was reversed. View "Care and Protection of Eve" on Justia Law

Ryan Holman sued the County of Butte, alleging it breached mandatory duties under Government Code section 815.6 related to the evaluation, investigation, and cross-reporting of a child abuse referral against him. Holman claimed the County failed to conduct an in-person investigation or cross-report the abuse allegations, leading to years of abuse and subsequent psychological issues. The County argued its employee exercised discretion in deciding to "evaluate out" the referral without further investigation, thus invoking discretionary immunity.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that the County's employee was exercising discretion protected by immunity when deciding to close the referral without an in-person investigation or cross-reporting. The court found no mandatory duty was breached, and the County was not liable under Government Code section 815.6.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County had a mandatory duty under section 11166, subdivision (j), to cross-report the child abuse referral to law enforcement and other agencies. The court determined that the duty to cross-report is triggered by the receipt of a mandated child abuse report and does not involve discretionary judgment. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether the County breached this mandatory duty by failing to cross-report the referral, thus reversing the summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Holman v. County of Butte" on Justia Law

A.L. (Mother) appealed the juvenile court's decision to assume dependency jurisdiction over her one-year-old daughter, Minor, following a single-vehicle drunk driving accident in which Minor suffered a severe brain injury. Mother also contested the court's decision to require monitored visitation. The accident occurred after Mother consumed alcohol at a party and drove at high speeds, resulting in a crash that caused significant injuries to Minor. At the scene, Mother attempted to prevent a bystander from calling for help, fearing her child would be taken away. Both Mother and Minor were transported to medical facilities, where Minor was found to have a brain bleed and required surgery.The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a petition alleging Minor needed dependency protection. The juvenile court found a prima facie basis for the petition and placed Minor in foster care after her hospital stay. CFS recommended that Minor be placed in the sole custody of her father, S.L. (Father), with no reunification services for Mother. The court continued the jurisdiction and disposition hearing multiple times, during which Mother complied with her case plan, including parenting classes and substance abuse counseling. Despite her progress, CFS maintained that sole custody should be vested with Father, and the matter should be transferred to family court.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the juvenile court's decision to assume dependency jurisdiction under both section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] and subdivision (e) [severe physical abuse]. The court found substantial evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings, noting the severity of Minor's injuries and Mother's actions at the scene. The court also upheld the monitored visitation requirement, emphasizing the need for continued supervision to ensure Minor's safety. The court concluded that the juvenile court did not err in its rulings. View "In re B.L." on Justia Law

In September 2021, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services removed J.T.L. and D.L.L. from their parents' care due to drug use and poor home conditions. This was the fourth removal for J.T.L. and the third for D.L.L. The children were enrolled in the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians in February 2022, and the Department notified the Tribe of the proceedings. The District Court adjudicated the children as youths in need of care in July 2022 and granted the Department temporary legal custody. In August 2022, the court ordered the mother to complete a treatment plan addressing substance use, mental health, parenting, and housing issues. The Department sought termination of her parental rights in October 2023 due to her failure to complete the treatment plan.The Montana Eighth Judicial District Court held a two-day hearing in July 2024 and terminated the mother's parental rights. The mother appealed, arguing that the Department did not make "active efforts" under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that guardianship, not termination, was in the children's best interests. The District Court found that the Department made active efforts to place the children with ICWA-preferred placements and to support their cultural connections. The court also found that the mother failed to comply with her treatment plan and that her condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the Department made active efforts under ICWA and that the termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests. The court found that the Department consulted with the Little Shell Tribe and sought input from various parties to support the children's cultural engagement. The court also found that the mother failed to complete her treatment plan and that her continued custody would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. View "Matter of D.L.L. & J.T.L." on Justia Law