Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In 2013, an eleven-year-old juvenile was charged with rape of a child by force and assault and battery on a child with substantial injury after allegedly biting his four-year-old cousin's penis. The rape charge was dismissed, and the juvenile was placed on one year of pretrial probation for the reduced charge of simple assault and battery. The juvenile completed probation without incident, and the charge was dismissed. In 2023, the now twenty-two-year-old juvenile, with no other record, petitioned to expunge his record under a statute allowing expungement if the offense is no longer a crime.The Juvenile Court denied the expungement petition. The court found that the offenses of rape of a child by force and assault and battery remain criminal acts, regardless of the age of the perpetrator, and thus do not qualify for expungement under the statute. The court also noted that the juvenile's records were ineligible for time-based expungement due to the serious nature of the offenses.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the Juvenile Court's decision. The court held that the 2018 legislative change, which excluded children under twelve from the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction, did not alter the definition of what constitutes a "crime" for the purposes of expungement under the statute. The court concluded that the relevant inquiry is whether the conduct itself has been decriminalized, not whether the individual can be prosecuted due to age. Since the conduct in question remains criminal, the juvenile's records do not qualify for expungement. View "Commonwealth v. Ambrose A." on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

Gabriel M., a minor, was charged with murder, robbery, and active gang participation. The juvenile court ordered his transfer to adult criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. Gabriel's counsel immediately informed the court of their intent to appeal the transfer and requested a stay of the criminal proceedings. The juvenile court initially granted the stay but later lifted it and transferred Gabriel, who was nearly 20 years old, to county jail. Gabriel then filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the lifting of the stay and his transfer to county jail.The juvenile court had ordered Gabriel detained in juvenile hall, but upon the prosecution's motion, the court transferred him to criminal court. Gabriel's counsel requested a stay of the criminal proceedings, which the court initially granted. However, the court later lifted the stay and ordered Gabriel transferred to county jail, citing his age and the seriousness of the charges. Gabriel's counsel objected, arguing that the stay could only be lifted upon Gabriel's request and that his transfer to an adult facility required a petition under section 208.5, which had not been filed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that under section 801 and rule 5.770(e)(2), the juvenile court was required to stay the criminal court proceedings until the final determination of Gabriel's appeal and could only lift the stay upon Gabriel's request. The court also held that Gabriel's transfer to county jail without following the procedures set forth in section 208.5 was erroneous. The court granted Gabriel's petition, directing the juvenile court to reinstate the stay and vacate the order transferring him to county jail. The court allowed for the possibility of a new petition under section 208.5 to transfer Gabriel to an adult facility. View "Gabriel M. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A child, referred to as Liam, suffered severe injuries at one month old, including multiple fractures and bruises, while in the care of his parents. The Onslow County Department of Social Services (DSS) took custody of Liam, who now requires extensive medical care due to cerebral palsy and other conditions resulting from the abuse. Liam was placed with foster parents, Daniel and Jessica Hall, who have provided him with a stable and nurturing environment. Liam's maternal grandfather expressed interest in custody but admitted he could not provide the necessary care.The District Court of Onslow County adjudicated Liam as abused and neglected and held multiple permanency-planning hearings. The court ultimately awarded custody to the Halls, finding that reunification with the parents was not in Liam's best interest due to their inability to explain his injuries and the mother's failure to participate in his medical care. The court also considered but did not find the maternal grandfather a suitable caretaker.The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, finding the trial court's findings insufficient under relevant statutory provisions. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new hearing.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, including considerations of the child's best interests and the feasibility of reunification. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order awarding custody to the Halls and converting the case to a Chapter 50 civil custody proceeding. View "In re L.L." on Justia Law

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order that removed her son, T.R., from her custody. The court found that Mother and Father had a history of violent altercations in T.R.’s presence, and that Mother’s behavior, including brandishing weapons, endangered T.R.’s safety. The court also found that Mother had mental and emotional challenges that rendered her incapable of providing regular care for T.R. Consequently, T.R. was declared a dependent child and removed from his parents.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition indicating that T.R. had no known Indian ancestry based on initial inquiries. However, the Department did not conduct a thorough ICWA inquiry with extended family members, and the juvenile court did not inquire about Mother’s possible Indian ancestry at subsequent hearings. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan for T.R. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. The Department moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot because Mother did not appeal the termination order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with ICWA even after selecting legal guardianship and terminating dependency jurisdiction. The Department conceded that its ICWA inquiry was deficient. The Court of Appeal denied the motion to dismiss, conditionally affirmed the juvenile court’s order, and remanded the case with directions for the Department to comply with ICWA’s inquiry and notice provisions. The court emphasized the ongoing duty to inquire about T.R.’s possible Indian ancestry and ensure full compliance with ICWA. View "In re T.R." on Justia Law

Niquan M. Dunn was indicted on six counts in the Geauga County Common Pleas Court, including drug-related crimes and possession of criminal tools. Counts 2 and 4, relevant to this appeal, charged Dunn with aggravated trafficking in drugs and trafficking in cocaine, respectively, with enhancements for committing the crimes "in the vicinity of a juvenile." The case proceeded to trial, where the State presented evidence including testimony from detectives and a controlled buy operation. Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in a house where Dunn was staying, and a four-month-old child was present in the home.The trial court denied Dunn's motion for acquittal on Counts 1 through 5 and the jury found him guilty on those counts. Dunn was sentenced to a total of 36 months in prison. On appeal, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the convictions in part, finding insufficient evidence that Dunn committed the crimes in the vicinity of a juvenile, as required for the enhancement. The appellate court focused on the lack of direct evidence that the child was present during the drug activities and distinguished the case from prior decisions.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the evidence was sufficient to support the "in the vicinity of a juvenile" enhancement. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that the child was present when Dunn prepared the drugs for distribution. The court reversed the Eleventh District's judgment, reinstating the enhancement on Count 2. View "State v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Santiago Gonzalo Canales was convicted of lewd acts and continuous sexual abuse of children, specifically his stepdaughter and niece, both under the age of 14 during the abuse. Canales's niece testified that he molested her from ages seven to 13, while his stepdaughter testified that he began molesting her when she was about 11, including vaginal penetration. Canales denied all allegations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicted Canales on all counts and found true the multiple victims allegations. He was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison, consisting of four consecutive sentences of 15 years to life.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. Canales challenged two jury instructions: CALCRIM No. 1120 and CALCRIM No. 252. The court upheld the use of CALCRIM No. 1120, stating it correctly reflected the statutory requirements for continuous sexual abuse, which did not necessitate a heightened mental state for "substantial sexual conduct." The court acknowledged an error in CALCRIM No. 252 but deemed it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of Canales's guilt. Canales's argument regarding the unanimity instruction was forfeited as he did not raise it during the trial.The court agreed with Canales and the prosecution that his sentence violated ex post facto principles because the One Strike law, which enhanced his sentence, did not apply to his offenses against his stepdaughter, which occurred before the law was amended to include continuous sexual abuse. Consequently, the court vacated Canales's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without applying the One Strike law. View "People v. Canales" on Justia Law

A juvenile was seen masturbating in a parked car and was charged with open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, a felony. At trial, the jury was also instructed on the lesser included offense of indecent exposure, a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months in jail. The jury found the juvenile delinquent only of the lesser included offense. The juvenile, who had no prior offenses, argued that the delinquency adjudication must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Juvenile Court judge denied the motion to dismiss and sentenced the juvenile to a continuance without a finding until his nineteenth birthday, after which the charge was dismissed. The juvenile appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the Appeals Court to address whether the Juvenile Court retained jurisdiction over a first offense of a minor misdemeanor after a jury trial.The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that once the jury found the juvenile delinquent only of a minor misdemeanor and it was undisputed that it was his first offense, the Juvenile Court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the delinquency adjudication should have been dismissed and recorded only as a Wallace W. determination. The court vacated the adjudication of delinquency and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Court with instructions to make the appropriate entry. View "Commonwealth v. Vince V." on Justia Law

Juan A., a teenager and dependent of the juvenile court, was removed from parental custody and placed in long-term foster care after the court found he was not adoptable and no one was willing to be his legal guardian. The court terminated family reunification services but did not terminate parental rights. Juan attended many hearings during his dependency case but was not present at the status review hearing that is the subject of this appeal. At that hearing, the court denied Juan’s trial counsel’s request for a brief continuance to allow Juan to be present, which was found to be an error as Juan had a right to be present under Welfare and Institutions Code section 349.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County declared Juan a dependent of the court in January 2020, removed him from parental custody, and ordered family reunification services for his mother. In August 2021, the court terminated these services. At a section 366.26 review hearing in June 2023, the court decided not to terminate parental rights, finding Juan not adoptable and no potential legal guardians available. The court ordered Juan to remain in foster care with permanent placement services. In March 2024, the court denied a continuance request for Juan to attend the permanency planning review hearing, found his placement appropriate, and scheduled the next review hearing for September 2024.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and found that the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance request, as Juan had a statutory right to be present at the hearing. The court held that this error prejudiced Juan, as his presence could have allowed him to request additional services to improve his academic performance and employment prospects. The appellate court reversed the orders issued at the March 28, 2024 hearing and remanded the case for a new status review hearing in accordance with section 349. View "In re Juan A." on Justia Law