Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A mother with a longstanding history of mental illness, including diagnoses of major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and PTSD, became the subject of a dependency proceeding concerning her infant daughter. After giving birth, the mother lived with her sister and relied on family support to care for her child. In late 2024, the mother’s mental health deteriorated—she stopped taking her medication, experienced suicidal thoughts, and her behavior became erratic. Family members expressed concern for the mother’s stability, and the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services (the Bureau) responded to allegations of neglect. An initial home assessment found the child safe, and a safety plan was created involving the child’s maternal grandmother providing primary care while the mother addressed her mental health.The Contra Costa County Superior Court sustained allegations that the mother’s mental health issues impaired her ability to provide regular care, and ordered the child removed from her custody. The court required the mother to engage in mental health services, substance abuse assessment, and random drug testing as conditions for reunification. The Bureau’s reports indicated some efforts to prevent removal but did not provide a detailed explanation or evidence that less restrictive alternatives—such as in-home support or involvement of other family members—had been adequately considered.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the mother’s mental illness created a substantial risk of harm to her child, justifying jurisdiction. However, the appellate court found the dispositional orders removing the child from the mother’s custody unsupported by clear and convincing evidence that there were no reasonable means to protect the child short of removal, or that the Bureau made reasonable efforts to prevent removal. The appellate court affirmed the jurisdictional findings but reversed the dispositional orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re L.G." on Justia Law

The case concerns a fatal stabbing involving a 14-year-old, Damore, who was charged with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon. The incident began with an altercation between two groups of teenagers at a convenience store in Lincoln, Nebraska, which escalated when the victim’s vehicle was damaged. The victim’s mother went to Damore’s residence to address the damage, leading to a confrontation. The victim arrived, a physical altercation ensued, and Damore stabbed the victim twice, resulting in the victim’s death. Damore was subsequently charged and sought to have his case transferred from district court to juvenile court.After Damore was bound over to the District Court for Lancaster County, he filed a motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. The district court conducted a multi-day evidentiary hearing, considering testimony from various witnesses and extensive documentary evidence. The district court made specific findings and evaluated each statutory factor required by Nebraska law, ultimately finding that most factors supported retaining the case in district court and denying the motion to transfer. Damore timely appealed.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed, concluding that the lower court’s findings and ultimate decision were not clearly untenable. Damore then sought further review, arguing that the Court of Appeals misstated and misapplied the abuse of discretion standard, and incorrectly reviewed the case.The Supreme Court of Nebraska addressed Damore’s arguments, clarified the abuse of discretion standard, and explained that the Court of Appeals had properly applied the standard. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not misstate or misapply the abuse of discretion standard and affirmed its decision, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Damore’s motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. View "State v. Damore" on Justia Law

A student with autism, Y.A., reported to his family that he had been sexually assaulted by fellow students at his middle school. The family’s report to the school prompted an investigation led by Detective Jonathan Graham. Another student, A.D., claimed to have witnessed the assault and identified three perpetrators, including a boy with the same first name as L.M. Although A.D. could not pick L.M. out of a photo lineup, the school later identified L.M. as the individual A.D. had previously accused of bullying. Based on the forensic interviews and supporting evidence, Graham submitted his findings to the Loudoun County Juvenile Intake Office, which determined that probable cause existed for a juvenile petition and issued a detention order for L.M. The charges against L.M. were later dropped when inconsistencies in A.D.’s statements came to light.L.M., joined by other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Graham and others, alleging violations of Virginia law and the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that L.M. had not plausibly alleged that his seizure was unsupported by probable cause or that Graham was the cause of his detention, given the independent determination by the Juvenile Intake Officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the facts alleged did not support a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under federal or state law because probable cause existed and there were no allegations that Graham withheld material information or misled the Juvenile Intake Officer. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "L.M. v. Graham" on Justia Law

A mother’s parental rights were terminated after her child was born drug-affected, prompting the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a child protection order. The mother, struggling with opioid use disorder, spent significant periods in jail and various treatment facilities. Despite participating in an Adult Treatment and Recovery Court program, she experienced multiple relapses and did not complete her treatment programs. At the time of the termination hearing, she remained in treatment with no clear plan for when she could care for her child.The District Court (Springvale) conducted a hearing on the Department’s petition to terminate parental rights. The court received evidence that the mother had a long-standing substance use disorder and inconsistent participation in treatment. The guardian ad litem (GAL) assigned to the case did not meet several statutory obligations, including meeting the mother in person, observing visits, attending family meetings, and filing timely reports. Nevertheless, the court found the mother unfit based on statutory criteria and concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. The mother appealed, arguing that the court misunderstood addiction and that deficiencies in the GAL’s performance undermined the best interest determination.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case for clear error and abuse of discretion. The court held that the evidence supported a finding of parental unfitness under at least one statutory ground, and deficiencies in the GAL’s performance did not prevent the trial court from independently determining the child’s best interest. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to explicitly consider a permanency guardianship. Accordingly, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights. View "In re Child of Danielle H." on Justia Law

A minor, J.A.D., was charged as a juvenile delinquent in South Dakota after threatening to shoot a school counselor, other students, and himself, during a conversation with a school official. These statements, made at school, led staff to initiate a soft lockdown and notify law enforcement. J.A.D. left the school, was later located at his grandfather’s home, and was arrested. The State charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault, and making a terrorist threat; the aggravated and simple assault charges were presented as alternatives.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit found J.A.D. not delinquent on aggravated assault, concluding the State had not established use of a deadly weapon or imminence of harm. However, the court found him delinquent on the simple assault and terrorist threat charges, determining that his statements constituted a credible threat and placed the counselor in fear, and that he threatened a crime of violence with the intent to impair a public service. For disposition, the court committed J.A.D. to the Department of Corrections, finding that less restrictive alternatives were not viable due to his prior unsuccessful treatments and risk to public safety.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the evidence supported findings of simple assault and making a terrorist threat, and whether commitment to the Department of Corrections was proper. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the simple assault adjudication because J.A.D.’s threat was not imminent, but affirmed the adjudication for making a terrorist threat, finding sufficient evidence of a specific intent to substantially impair a public service. The Supreme Court also affirmed the commitment to the Department of Corrections, holding that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and that it did not abuse its discretion. View "Interest Of J.A.D." on Justia Law

A minor admitted to committing vandalism causing property damage exceeding $400. The juvenile court adjudged the minor a ward of the court, placed him on probation, and reserved jurisdiction over restitution. At a later hearing, the court accepted a stipulation between the minor and the prosecution regarding the amount of restitution and ordered the minor, his co-offender, and his parents jointly and severally liable for payment. The minor did not appeal the initial dispositional or restitution orders.Subsequently, after a statutory amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 eliminated joint and several liability for co-offenders in juvenile restitution, the minor requested that the court divide liability, making him responsible solely for half the restitution. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied this request, reaffirmed joint and several liability, and after the minor successfully completed probation, dismissed the petition and sealed his records. The minor appealed the postjudgment orders, arguing the new law should apply retroactively to his case because his case was not yet final.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the case was final for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative legislation under the Estrada rule. The court held that a juvenile case becomes final for these purposes when the dispositional order is not appealed within the allowed time and direct review is exhausted. The court found that the minor’s case became final before the new statute took effect because he did not appeal the dispositional or restitution orders. As a result, the amendment did not apply retroactively to his case. The court affirmed the postjudgment orders. View "In re Christian V." on Justia Law

A 15-year-old boy shot and killed his former girlfriend, a 17-year-old, after sending her harassing and threatening messages. The confrontation occurred at a park following an exchange with the victim’s cousin, which escalated into a plan to fight. The defendant brought his mother’s handgun to the scene and, during the confrontation, shot the victim in the face as she approached him. He was apprehended shortly after the shooting and confessed to law enforcement.The State originally charged the defendant with first-degree murder and misdemeanor stalking. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to second-degree murder and stalking. At sentencing, the prosecutor and defense agreed that an individualized hearing was appropriate, given the defendant’s juvenile status. The prosecution recommended a sentence of 44 to 75 years for the murder conviction, referencing Wyoming’s Bear Cloud line of cases and statutory limits for juvenile offenders. The defense argued that, under Wyoming law and constitutional principles, the maximum allowable sentence for a juvenile convicted of homicide should be 22.5 years to life, or at most a minimum term not exceeding 43 years. The District Court of Natrona County sentenced the defendant to 42 to 75 years for second-degree murder and time served for stalking.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed whether (1) Wyoming’s juvenile parole eligibility statute applied, (2) the sentence exceeded statutory limits, and (3) the sentence violated the Wyoming Constitution’s prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. The Court held that the parole eligibility statute applied only to life sentences, not to terms of years. The sentence fell within statutory limits for second-degree murder. Finally, the Court found the sentence was not “unusual” under the state constitution because there was no consensus among legislatures or courts that such a sentence for a juvenile was unlawful. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Castaner v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A child was removed from the care of their mother in Utah after the mother experienced a mental health crisis, leading to the Utah Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) taking protective custody of the child. The father, living in Georgia, sought custody. The juvenile court ordered DCFS to request a home study from Georgia officials via the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). Georgia attempted to conduct the home visit twice, but was unable to complete it because the father lacked a stable residence. The court found the child could not safely be returned to the father and ultimately terminated his parental rights.The Second District Juvenile Court in Weber County initially adjudicated the child dependent as to the mother and neglected as to the father due to abandonment, later revising the finding to dependency after the father argued he had been denied access by the mother. Despite the father's efforts to establish paternity and seek visitation, the court maintained the child in DCFS custody with a goal of reunification. After two failed ICPC home studies due to the father's unstable housing, the court changed the permanency goal to adoption and terminated reunification services. DCFS then filed to terminate the father’s parental rights, and after trial, the juvenile court issued an order terminating those rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case on certification from the Utah Court of Appeals. The father argued that his appointed counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the use of the ICPC process or proposing alternatives for the required home visit. The Supreme Court held that counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable under the Strickland standard, noting that the ICPC was commonly used in these circumstances and alternatives were impractical or unlikely to be accepted. The court affirmed the termination of the father’s parental rights. View "In re B.G." on Justia Law

A defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time, participated in a premeditated and armed home invasion along with several accomplices. The group entered the victim’s home with knives and a handgun, threatened the victim, and inflicted physical injury by striking him with a shotgun. Prior to this incident, the defendant had a history of escalating criminal behavior, including multiple arrests and Family Court appearances since age thirteen. He had received Family Court services for about five years, including supervision and therapy for several diagnosed mental health conditions.Following indictment on charges of first-degree burglary and first-degree robbery, the People moved to prevent the case’s transfer from the youth part of County Court to Family Court, citing “extraordinary circumstances.” The youth part convened a hearing, considered the defendant’s history of receiving Family Court services, and determined, after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, that extraordinary circumstances existed warranting retention of the case in the youth part. The defendant was subsequently convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to a state prison term.The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the violent nature of the offense, the defendant’s lack of positive response to prior Family Court services, and his continued escalated criminal activity supported the youth part’s determination. One Justice dissented, arguing for a stricter interpretation of “extraordinary circumstances,” but leave to appeal was granted.The New York State Court of Appeals reviewed whether the youth part abused its discretion in denying removal to Family Court. The Court held that the youth part did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law, emphasizing the broad judicial discretion provided by the legislature in determining extraordinary circumstances under the Raise the Age statute. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Guerrero" on Justia Law

Two children were removed from their parents’ home in June 2020 and subsequently found by the Juvenile Court of Williams County, North Dakota, to be children in need of protection. The children remained in the custody of North Star Human Service Zone. In 2022, the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents, but those petitions were denied. On April 1, 2025, the State filed new petitions to terminate parental rights. Following a hearing, the juvenile court found that termination was in the children’s best interests and ordered that the parental rights of G.G. (the father) and S.F. (the mother) be terminated. The court issued oral and written findings supporting its decision, but neither addressed whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied. G.G. appealed the termination of his parental rights, contending that the juvenile court’s findings were inadequate because they failed to determine whether ICWA applied. The State responded that ICWA was not applicable. The Supreme Court of North Dakota noted that in termination proceedings, a juvenile court must make a threshold inquiry and finding as to whether ICWA applies whenever there is reason to know the child may be an Indian child. The Supreme Court further explained that this inquiry is required for each new petition, and the absence of such a finding constitutes clear error. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court’s failure to make a threshold finding on ICWA applicability was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the juvenile court with instructions to make a finding on whether ICWA applies, based on the existing record or with additional evidence if necessary. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction during the remand. View "Interest of D.G." on Justia Law