Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A mother left her ten-month-old son, K.R., with his paternal grandmother without specifying when she would return, leading to concerns about the child’s safety and the mother's alleged drug use. Law enforcement and child welfare agencies became involved, and K.R. was placed in temporary custody with his grandmother. The initial case plan aimed for the child’s reintegration with the mother, contingent on her maintaining sobriety, stable housing, and mental health services. Due to the mother's lack of progress, the permanency goal was later changed to adoption. After a missed drug test and absence from a court hearing, the district court terminated the mother's parental rights by default, without receiving evidence.The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the initial termination because the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing, as required by statute, and remanded for proper proceedings. On remand, after an evidentiary hearing where the mother demonstrated significant improvement—maintaining sobriety, stable housing, and employment—the district court again terminated her parental rights. However, while the court found the mother unfit, it did not make a finding that her unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. A different Court of Appeals panel affirmed the termination, concluding that sufficient evidence supported both the finding of unfitness and the likelihood it would not change.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed whether termination was proper without an explicit district court finding that the mother’s unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, as required by K.S.A. 38-2269(a). The court held that absent this specific finding, the district court lacked authority to terminate parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with statutory requirements. View "In re K.R. " on Justia Law

A juvenile born in 2007 was adjudicated at age 14 for habitual truancy and placed on indefinite probation. Over the next several years, he was adjudicated in four separate delinquency cases—primarily theft and assault-related—and placed on indefinite probation in each case. While still on probation in all five cases, the State filed a felony criminal complaint against him for attempted robbery. In response, the State moved in all juvenile cases for a finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitative services under the Nebraska Juvenile Code, requesting that the court terminate jurisdiction “unsuccessfully.”The Separate Juvenile Court of Sarpy County held a consolidated hearing, receiving evidence regarding the juvenile’s history, participation in probation and services, and recent criminal charges. The court found him nonamenable to rehabilitative services and ordered termination of both probation and the court’s jurisdiction, specifying that the record would not be sealed. The juvenile appealed these orders. The Nebraska Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals, and the Nebraska Supreme Court moved them to its docket to address statutory interpretation and procedural issues regarding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106.03.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a finding of nonamenability under § 43-2,106.03 must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, with the State bearing the burden when it moves for such a finding. The Court affirmed the juvenile court’s determination of nonamenability, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it held there is no statutory authority for a juvenile court to terminate probation or jurisdiction based solely on a finding of nonamenability under § 43-2,106.03. The Supreme Court affirmed the nonamenability finding, but vacated the orders terminating probation and jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further proceedings. View "In re Interest of Johnny H." on Justia Law

During a daytime traffic stop in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a police officer encountered a sixteen-year-old juvenile who had been reported missing by the Department of Children and Families. The juvenile was seated in a vehicle with an infant and three adults, one of whom was known by the officer to be affiliated with a street gang. The officer ordered the juvenile out of the car without asking any questions and immediately conducted a patfrisk, discovering a handgun on the juvenile’s person. The juvenile was subsequently charged with multiple firearms offenses and indicted as a youthful offender on one count.The Essex County Juvenile Court reviewed the juvenile’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the exit order and patfrisk, arguing violation of constitutional rights. After an evidentiary hearing, the judge granted the motion to suppress, finding the officer's actions unjustified under the circumstances. The Commonwealth sought interlocutory review, and a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk allowed the appeal. The Appeals Court reversed the suppression order, concluding the officer’s actions were reasonable under the community caretaking doctrine. The Supreme Judicial Court then granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the officer’s exit order was justified under the community caretaking doctrine, as the officer was acting to ensure the safety and well-being of a missing juvenile. However, due to inconsistencies in the Juvenile Court judge’s findings regarding the credibility of the officer’s testimony about key facts supporting the patfrisk, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the suppression order. The case was remanded to the Juvenile Court for clarification of factual findings and reconsideration of the legal conclusions in light of those findings and the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Demos D." on Justia Law

The Clark County Department of Family Services filed a petition under Nevada law seeking protection for three minor children, alleging they were in need of protection from their father and stepmother. The allegations against the stepmother were withdrawn prior to trial. The juvenile court in Clark County conducted a full evidentiary hearing regarding the father and ultimately found that the allegations were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, resulting in dismissal of the petition against him.Following this dismissal, both the Department and the minor children appealed the juvenile court’s order to the Supreme Court of Nevada. However, concerns arose regarding the appealability of such an order, as prior precedent—specifically In re A.B., 128 Nev. 764—held that orders from juvenile proceedings concerning child custody were not substantively appealable under Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) 3A. The Supreme Court temporarily halted the appeal and directed appellants to show cause why jurisdiction existed.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Nevada found that the jurisdictional analysis in In re A.B. was flawed. The court determined that an order completely dismissing and thus finally resolving a petition for child protection under NRS Chapter 432B meets the definition of a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1), because it disposes of all issues in the case. The court overruled In re A.B. to the extent that it held such orders were unappealable, clarifying that NRAP 3A(b)(1) allows an appeal from a final judgment entered by a district court—even when it arises from juvenile proceedings involving child custody. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the order dismissing the petition is appealable and allowed the appeal to proceed. View "IN RE: N.D." on Justia Law

The case concerns a child, DC, who was removed from his parents’ care shortly after birth due to substantiated concerns about neglect, failure to thrive, domestic violence, mental health issues, substance abuse, and instability within the family. The child was placed with maternal grandparents, and a permanency plan for family reunification was established. The father, AC, was given a case plan with specific requirements addressing sobriety, mental health, parenting skills, stable housing, and employment. Over the next eighteen months, the father was incarcerated for nearly a year of that period, including a new sentence of five to seven years for felony offenses. He failed to make consistent progress on his case plan goals, particularly concerning mental health and substance abuse treatment, employment, and securing stable housing.The District Court of Platte County—sitting as a juvenile court—initially ordered reunification, then shifted to a concurrent goal of reunification and adoption as the father’s progress stalled and his incarceration continued. The Department of Family Services documented extensive, tailored efforts to facilitate reunification, including arranging for services while the father was both in and out of custody. Despite these efforts, the father did not meaningfully participate in or complete the required treatment, counseling, or parenting programs. At an evidentiary review hearing, the court found the Department’s efforts reasonable and accessible, and that it was in the child’s best interests to change the permanency plan to adoption. The father appealed the change, arguing insufficient efforts were made to accommodate his incarceration.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the juvenile court’s decision for abuse of discretion. It held that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunify father and child, even considering the constraints of incarceration, and that the child’s need for stability outweighed the father’s incomplete progress. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s order changing the permanency plan to adoption. View "In the Interest Of: DC" on Justia Law

A 16-year-old individual was criminally charged in Montana with several offenses, including aggravated burglary and assault on a peace officer. The prosecution filed an Information in the District Court, and a hearing was scheduled to decide whether the matter should be transferred to Youth Court, as permitted by Montana law for certain juvenile defendants. Before being arraigned, the defendant moved to substitute the presiding judge, arguing the motion was timely since arraignment had not yet occurred.The Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denied the substitution motion without prejudice, reasoning that such motions are prohibited in Youth Court actions and would only be considered if the case remained in District Court following the transfer hearing. The court also issued an order for evaluation to assist in the transfer determination, but the order was initially filed under an incorrect cause number. The defendant then petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control, claiming the denial of the substitution motion was erroneous because the case was pending in District Court as a criminal action, not a Youth Court matter.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that after the State files an Information in District Court, jurisdiction over the criminal matter rests with the District Court, and the action is not a Youth Court case at that stage. The court further clarified that under Montana law, a defendant’s right to substitute a judge in criminal cases may be exercised any time before arraignment, and that the 10-day window for substitution closes at arraignment rather than opening at that point. The Supreme Court granted the petition for supervisory control, set aside the District Court’s order denying substitution, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "S.L. v. 4th Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

An 11-year-old child, L.D., was placed in foster care with Trina Mae Johnson. Over a period of fifteen months, Johnson inflicted severe abuse on L.D., including physical torture, starvation, denial of medical care, and psychological torment. The abuse resulted in significant weight loss, untreated injuries, and lasting trauma. Johnson concealed the abuse, enlisted others in her household to participate, and intimidated L.D. into silence. The abuse came to light when Johnson brought L.D. to a youth shelter, prompting an investigation by child services and the FBI.Johnson and several co-defendants were indicted on charges of child torture, child neglect, child endangerment, and assaulting a minor with a dangerous weapon in both federal and Minnesota state law violations. Some co-defendants pleaded guilty, while Johnson’s sister went to trial. Johnson was unable to accept a plea agreement because it was contingent on both sisters pleading guilty. She ultimately pleaded guilty without an agreement. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota sentenced Johnson to 216 months in prison, after considering the relevant sentencing factors and victim impact statements. The sentence was below the government’s recommendation but above the prior plea offer.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Johnson argued that the district court judge’s direct, sympathetic comments to L.D. at sentencing demonstrated judicial bias and violated her due process right to an impartial tribunal. The Eighth Circuit applied plain error review, noting Johnson did not object to the judge’s comments at sentencing or seek recusal. The court held that the judge’s empathetic remarks to the victim did not display deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Finding no plain error or due process violation, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case centers on Brett Dewayne Cole, who was charged with three counts stemming from allegations of sexual abuse against his stepdaughter, K.Z., a member of the Choctaw tribe. In May 2019, K.Z., then ten years old, disclosed to school personnel and a nurse examiner that Cole had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions at their family home, including acts of touching and oral and anal penetration. Cole denied any inappropriate conduct. During trial, the government sought to introduce testimony from three witnesses—Cole’s half-sister, half-brother, and stepcousin—about prior instances in which Cole allegedly molested them as children, with these incidents occurring when Cole himself was a juvenile.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over Cole’s case. At the first trial in January 2023, evidence of Cole’s prior acts as a juvenile was admitted over his belated objection, but the jury failed to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. In a second trial held in March 2023, similar evidence was presented, and the jury convicted Cole on all counts. Cole appealed, arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 414 did not permit admission of the prior acts because he was a juvenile at the time, and that the evidence’s prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that acts of child molestation committed as a juvenile qualify as “crimes” under Rule 414 and are admissible. It further found that the district court properly balanced the probative value against any prejudicial impact and did not abuse its discretion. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Cole’s conviction. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

The case concerns a child who was removed from his parents due to domestic violence, the father’s criminal history, and the mother’s untreated mental illness. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services placed the child with a caretaker and provided reunification services to the parents, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Parental rights were ultimately terminated, and adoption was set as the permanent plan. Throughout the proceedings, the Department investigated whether the child might have Native American heritage, as required under California law analogous to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the Department’s efforts to determine the child's possible Native American ancestry. The parents had initially denied any such heritage, but at one point the father suggested there might be Native American ancestry. The Department interviewed or attempted to contact numerous relatives and family associates about possible Native American ancestry, but did not contact four specific known relatives. After reviewing the Department's inquiry, the juvenile court found there was no reason to know that ICWA applied in this case.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the adequacy of the Department’s inquiry under the deferential standard established by the California Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that the Department had adequately discharged its duty of reasonable inquiry by asking those persons it would normally contact whether the child might have Native American heritage, and was not required to contact every possible relative. The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s order, explicitly disagreeing with a contrary approach that would impose broader duties on the Department. View "In re K.G." on Justia Law

Four juveniles were found jointly and severally liable for victim restitution in the amount of $15,850.54, after an incident involving Jane Doe and her family. Two of the minors, J.L. and O.V., appealed the restitution order, specifically challenging a portion related to childcare expenses incurred by Doe’s mother. Both minors accepted the legitimacy of some childcare costs but argued for reductions in the total awarded based on their interpretation of supporting evidence. Additionally, J.L. and O.V. sought apportionment of the total restitution among the four co-offenders, referencing a recent amendment to the Welfare and Institutions Code that eliminated joint and several liability in juvenile delinquency restitution matters, effective January 1, 2025.The Superior Court of Marin County initially heard the matter. The juvenile court found that the People had established the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence and ordered all four minors jointly and severally liable for the total sum. J.L. and O.V. subsequently appealed the restitution order to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the evidentiary record and legal arguments. The appellate court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $3,850 for childcare expenses, finding sufficient factual support for the amount claimed. Regarding apportionment, the appellate court concluded that the recent statutory amendment to eliminate joint and several liability for victim restitution applies prospectively and not retroactively. Thus, J.L. and O.V. were not entitled to have their restitution obligations apportioned under the new law. The judgment of the juvenile court was affirmed. View "In re J.L." on Justia Law