Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose from "an unfortunate situation" of child-on-child abuse within the foster care system. Plaintiffs J.W. and M.R.W. are a foster couple, and their now-adopted foster children were injured after an abusive foster child was placed in their home in 2002. Plaintiffs raised several state and federal claims against Utah and the state employees involved in placing the abusive child in their home. The district court dismissed several of Plaintiffs' negligence claims based on Utah's Governmental Immunity Act. As for Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court held that the caseworker and her supervisor were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs had not shown a failure to exercise professional judgment on the part of the caseworker, nor had they shown any basis for holding the supervisor liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs challenged these decisions on appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the undisputed evidence in the record reflected that there was an impermissible deviation from professional judgment on the part of the state employees. Furthermore, the Court found Plaintiffs did not set forth a valid basis for holding the employees liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "J.W. v. Utah" on Justia Law

After it was discovered that Katrina R., who was fifteen years old at the time, sent nude photographs of herself to her boyfriend's cellular phone, Katrina was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(b) as a child who deports herself so as to injure or endanger seriously the morals or health or herself or others. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Katrina serve six months' probation, that she be placed in the legal custody of The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and that she participate in counseling and community service. DHHS appealed the order, contending that the juvenile court erred in simultaneously committing Katrina to DHHS and placing her on probation in the same juvenile court case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that is within the juvenile court's statutory power to issue a dispositional order for juveniles adjudicated under section 43-247(3)(b) that includes both legal custody with DHHS and supervision by a probation officer. View "In re Interest of Katrina R." on Justia Law

The State appealed a juvenile court order that adopted a judicial referee's decision that minor child D.J. was not required to register as a sexual offender. In March 2009, the State filed a petition in juvenile court, alleging D.J., a sixteen year old, committed an act of gross sexual imposition by engaging in a sexual act with a six-year-old victim. A judicial referee accepted D.J.'s admission that he committed the act, ordered him to complete a sexual offender evaluation and follow all recommendations, and reserved the issue of whether he was required to register as a sexual offender under state law. The referee thereafter issued a written order, concluding the State had the burden of proving D.J. was required to register as a sexual offender and that the State had failed to satisfy its burden of proof. The State requested judicial review of the referee's decision, and the juvenile court adopted the referee's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a juvenile court may order the preparation of a report or evaluation to address requirements for registration as a sexual offender and may require production of the report or evaluation to make findings on the requirements for registration. But because a court-ordered evaluation was not provided to the juvenile court in this case and the court did not make required findings on registration, the Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Interest of D.J." on Justia Law

The dispute in this case involved a circuit court's order requiring a school district to develop and implement an educational plan for a juvenile who was adjudged delinquent after the district expelled him from school. The court of appeals granted the district a writ of prohibition and vacated the circuit court order, concluding that the circuit court did not act within its authority in entering the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that (1) the school district had statutory authority to expel the student from school; (2) the circuit court did not have statutory authority to order a school district to provide alternative educational services to a juvenile who had been expelled from school by a lawful and unchallenged expulsion order but was still residing in the community; and (3) the court of appeals did not err in utilizing a supervisory writ to review the district court's order to provide appropriate educational resources in this case. View "Madison Metropolitan Sch. Dist. v. Circuit Court for Dane County" on Justia Law

K.C., a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent. As part of her disposition, she was allowed to remain in a home environment and placed on supervised probation. After K.C. violated various terms of her probation, her probation was revoked and her disposition changed to placement at a state girls' school for an indefinite period. K.C. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions because placement at the girls' school fell within the statutorily allowable sanctions applicable to K.C. and, thus, the court was not required to provide a written justification for the placement; (2) the juvenile court's consideration of a statement K.C. made that she would not follow the rules of a residential program did not violate K.C.'s right against self-incrimination because the statement was considered only in the dispositional phase of the delinquency proceedings; and (3) there was no violation of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 11 because the rule does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. View "In re K.C." on Justia Law

J.L. was fourteen when he engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with his twelve-year-old girlfriend. A juvenile petition was filed against J.L., and the circuit court adjudicated J.L. as a delinquent under S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-1(1), a statute under which the girlfriend was legally incapable of giving consent and under which J.L. would have been convicted of rape in the first degree had J.L. been an adult. On appeal, J.L. argued that the application of the statute to the facts of this case created an absurd result, one not reasonably intended by the legislature. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that application of the statute to the facts did not suggest an unintended absurdity. View "In re J.L. " on Justia Law

Petitioner, a juvenile, was convicted for trespassing upon the grounds of a school facility in violation of section 810.097(2), Florida Statutes. At issue was whether the prosecution must prove the identity of the individual who warned defendant to leave the grounds of the school, and that individual's authority to restrict access to the property, as essential elements of the trespass offense. The court held that the individual's identity and authority were essential elements of the offense and quashed the decision of the Third District. The court also held that, because in this case the state failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the petitioner was warned to leave by the school's principal or a designee of the principal, petitioner's conviction must be vacated. View "D.J. v. State" on Justia Law

Sixteen-year-old Defendant Oden Gutierrez confessed to shooting and killing Thomas Powell in Powell's home and stealing his car. Defendant was charged by criminal information with an open charge of murder, aggravated burglary, armed robbery for stealing a car while armed with a deadly weapon, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. A jury found him guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to life in prison plus nineteen and one-half years. Defendant appealed his sentence. He raised several issues which fell into four categories: (1) the suppression of evidence pertaining to his confession; (2) change of venue due to prejudicial pre-trial publicity; (3) a double jeopardy violation for his convictions of both armed robbery and the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle; and (4) an unlawful sentence based on constitutional grounds, mainly that a life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment for a youthful offender. Upon careful consideration of Defendant's arguments, the trial record, and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for re-sentencing with instructions that a pre-sentence report be prepared. The Court also vacated Defendant's conviction for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle because it violated the proscription against double jeopardy in this case. The Court affirmed the district court on all other issues. View "New Mexico v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent based on findings of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12–13(a)(1)) and attempted robbery (720 ILCS 5/8–4(a), 18–1). The trial court ordered him committed for an indeterminate term, to automatically terminate in 15 years or at age 21. The appellate and state supreme courts affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, despite some inconsistencies in testimony. The court presumed that the trial court did not allow the juvenile to be shackled without a hearing on whether restraint was required, absent any indication in the record that the court was aware that he was in shackles before he was called to testify. Delinquency adjudications are not the equivalent of felony convictions,so it is not unconstitutional that juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial. Imposition of collateral consequences on juveniles adjudicated delinquent for committing felony sex offenses, such as reduced confidentiality, unavailability of expungement, and possibility of involuntary commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Act,do not negate the rehabilitative purposes of the Act so that a jury trial would be required. View "In re Jonathon C.B., a Minor" on Justia Law

This case involved the placement of juvenile A.B., who was being detained at a juvenile center. The juvenile court concluded that A.B. be placed out of state at Canyon State Academy where A.B. could learn to be independent. The Department of Child Services (DCS) overruled the decision, requiring A.B. to be placed at one of several facilities in Indiana. The trial court entered an order of modification, finding that three sections of the Indiana Code allowing the director of DCS to supplant the juvenile court judge in making dispositional decrees affecting children under his jurisdiction were unconstitutional. DCS appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order regarding the constitutionality of the statues, holding that the three statutes do not violate the separation of powers provision of the Indiana constitution. The Court then held that the DCS requirement that A.B. be placed in Indiana rather than out of state at Canyon State Academy was arbitrary and capricious, upheld the trial court's placement of A.B. at Canyon State Academy, and ordered DCS to pay for the placement. View "A.B. v. State" on Justia Law