Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 602 wardship petition was filed alleging that D.B. committed a series of criminal offenses, including serious or violent offenses. A juvenile court found the allegations true, sustained the petition, and committed D.B. to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for the maximum term. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that the plain language of Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 733(c) prohibits a DJF commitment when the minor’s most recent offense is not listed in Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 707(b) or Cal. Penal Code 290.008(c). The People appealed, arguing that the court of appeal’s interpretation could produce absurd consequences when a juvenile’s violent crime spree happens to end with a nonviolent offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of section 733(c) mandates that a minor may not be committed to DJF unless the most recently committed offense that is alleged in any wardship petition, then admitted or found true, is listed in section 707(b) or section 290.008(c). View "In re D.B." on Justia Law

Michael and April are the biological parents of Avalyn, born out of wedlock in 2002. A court ordered Michael to pay child support but did not order visitation. In 2005, the state took temporary emergency custody of Avalyn after April attempted suicide. The county sought an adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), but did not give Michael notice. Avalyn was placed in foster care with her maternal grandmother in April’s home. Michael claims that because he was paying support through the state, caseworkers knew or should have known how to contact him. About six months after the disposition he received notice and intervened. The court placed Avalyn with Michael until November 2007, when the parties stipulated that Avalyn should be placed with April but divide her time between her parents. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Michael alleged that in failing to notify him of the juvenile proceedings, the defendants interfered with constitutional rights to familial integrity, substantive due process, and equal protection and that the Nebraska statutes were unconstitutional. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that claims against state defendants for monetary damages were barred by sovereign immunity; qualified immunity shielded employees from liability in their individual capacities because they did not violate a clearly established right. Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were not barred. In a juvenile proceeding alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for a child’s known adjudicated or biological father who is providing substantial and regular financial support; the statutes at issue are not facially unconstitutional, but cannot be constitutionally applied to avoid notification. View "Michael E. v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, twelve years old at the time of the offense, appealed his conviction for sexually abusing his six year old cousin. The court concluded that the certification that the government filed in the district court met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 5032 by certifying that "the juvenile court or the state does not have jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency," even though it was missing a page and did not include a statement of the government's substantial federal interest in this case. Guided by the United States v. Kim factors, considering the totality of the circumstances of defendant's detention, and taking into account defendant's status as a juvenile, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the questioning and leave the police station. Therefore, defendant was "in custody" during his interrogation by the detective. Defendant was never read his Miranda rights and his inculpatory statements during his interrogation by the detective must be suppressed. Defendant's younger brother, who was seven at the time of trial and five at the time of the offense, was competent to testify as a witness. The evidence at trial, including defendant's inculpatory statements, was not insufficient to support the conviction. The court reversed and remanded, however, because the inculpatory statements were obtained in violation of defendant's Miranda rights and should have been suppressed. View "United States v. IMM" on Justia Law

Robert Lee Colton Dietsch appealed his conviction for sexual assault of a twelve-year-old girl. Dietsch was seventeen at the time of the alleged assault. The State charged Dietsch as an adult. Dietsch moved to transfer prosecution from the district court to the youth court. The district court denied the motion. Dietsch later entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilt to one count of sexual assault in exchange for the State's agreement to drop a sexual consent without consent charge. Ultimately Dietsch received a deferred sentence of six years and sixty days. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Dietsch argued the district court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer his case to the youth court. The Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the district court's decision. However, the Court concluded the district court erred in its imposition of certain conditions on Dietsch, including setting an indeterminate amount for restitution, and failing to retain jurisdiction over the case until Dietsch reached age 21. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Montana v. Dietsch" on Justia Law

J.S., a juvenile, was adjudicated as a delinquent for burglary and battery under two separate juvenile petitions and placed in a level four juvenile detention facility until he reached the age of twenty-one. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if J.S. was wrongfully denied a detention hearing on the burglary petition and a preliminary hearing on the battery petition, the errors were harmless; (2) any error in not filing a timely adjudicatory order on the burglary petition was harmless; (3) the circuit court did not err in considering certain hearsay evidence at the disposition hearing; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in placing J.S. in a level four juvenile detention facility; and (5) the circuit court’s failure to advise J.S. of his right to appeal was not reversible error. View "State v. J.S." on Justia Law

In 1990, defendant, then 14 years old, was arrested for two fatal shootings. Following a discretionary hearing under the Juvenile Court Act, the court allowed defendant to be prosecuted under the criminal laws. He was convicted of two first degree murders, attempted first degree murders of two others, and home invasion. Because defendant was convicted of murdering more than one victim, the Unified Code of Corrections, 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c), required a term of natural life imprisonment, with parole not available. He was also sentenced to 30 years for each attempted murder and home invasion, all to run concurrently. The appellate court affirmed. In 1996-1998 defendant filed three post-conviction petitions. All were dismissed; the appellate court affirmed the dismissals. In 2002, defendant filed another petition, arguing that the natural life sentence was unconstitutional because defendant did not actually participate in the act of killing; that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment; and that the statute requiring a mandatory life sentence violated the Illinois Constitution as applied to a 14-year-old. The circuit court dismissed, noting that defendant carried a weapon and actually entered the abode where the murders occurred. The appellate court affirmed. Defendant another petition in 2011, arguing violation of the Eighth Amendment in light of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Graham v. Florida, and ineffective assistance because counsel failed to interview an eyewitness before the juvenile hearing. The court denied the petition. While appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided in Miller v. Alabama (2012), that “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” The appellate court concluded that Miller applies retroactively on post-conviction review and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, but upheld denial of the ineffective assistance claim. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. View "People v. Davis" on Justia Law

Respondent was charged by juvenile petition, as both a principal and an accomplice, with criminal sexual conduct and other crimes arising out of the rape of a fourteen-year-old girl. After a hearing, the juvenile court concluded that Respondent had not overcome the presumption in favor of certification to adult court and certified Respondent for prosecution as an adult. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to expressly weigh the seriousness of the alleged offense and Respondent’s prior record of delinquency separate from other public safety factors and by failing to specifically delineate how its determination of the two factors impacted its certification decision, as required by Minn. Stat. 260B.125. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erroneously interpreted section 260B.125(4); and (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Respondent failed to overcome the presumption in favor of certification. View "In re Welfare of J.H." on Justia Law

When Muniur M. was fourteen years old, he was charged with delinquency by reason of rape of a child with force. Muniur later admitted to sufficient facts to warrant an adjudication of delinquency on the charge of statutory rape. The juvenile court judge adjudicated Muniur delinquent and committed him to the Department of Youth Services but suspended the commitment and placed him on probation. Over eighteen years later, Muniur filed a motion to vacate his admission and for a new trial, alleging that his father forced him to admit to sufficient facts. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the district court judge allowed the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judge’s order and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the judge erred by not allowing evidence to be taken, and tested by cross-examination, on the substantial issue of the voluntariness of Muniur’s admission. View "Commonwealth v. Muniur M." on Justia Law

In 2010, the juvenile court found H.V. to be delinquent and committed him to a minimum six-month term commitment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS). H.V. was subsequently placed on supervised release. Thereafter, H.V. was charged with second-degree felonious assault and with violating the terms of his supervised release. The juvenile court judge revoked H.V.’s supervised release and committed him to a minimum ninety-day commitment to the ODYS. Five days later, the judge found H.V. to be delinquent and committed him to the ODYS for a minimum one year commitment. The court ordered that the ninety-day term imposed for the violation of supervised release would run consecutively to the one-year term imposed for the felonious assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a juvenile court has the authority to commit a delinquent juvenile to the ODYS for a minimum period in excess of thirty days for violating his supervised release; and (2) in committing a juvenile to the ODYS for a supervised-release violation, a juvenile court can order that the commitment period be served consecutively to the commitment period imposed for that crime that resulted in the violation of supervised release. View "In re H.V." on Justia Law

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) establishes federal standards for state-court custody proceedings involving Indian children. It bars involuntary termination of parental rights absent a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s “continued custody” of the child, 25 U.S.C. 1912(f); conditions involuntary termination of parental rights on showing that remedial efforts have been made to prevent the “breakup of the Indian family,” (1912(d)); and provides preferences for adoption of Indian children to extended family, members of the tribe, and other Indian families, (1915(a)). Before Baby Girl’s birth, Biological Father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, agreed to relinquish his parental rights. Birth Mother put Baby Girl up for adoption through a private agency and selected non-Indian adoptive parents. During the pregnancy and the first four months of Baby Girl’s life, Biological Father provided no financial assistance. Four months after the birth, Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. Biological Father sought custody and stated that he did not consent to the adoption. South Carolina Family Court denied the adoption petition and awarded Biological Father custody. At the age of 27 months, Baby Girl was given to Biological Father, whom she had never met. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, stating that, assuming that Biological Father is a “parent” under the ICWA, that law does not bar termination of his parental rights. “Continued custody” refers to custody that a parent already has or at least has had; section 1912(f) does not apply where the Indian parent never had custody. Section 1912(d) conditions involuntary termination of parental rights on a showing of efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family; the section applies only when the “breakup” would be precipitated by terminating parental rights. When an Indian parent abandons an Indian child before birth and that child has never been in that parent’s custody, the “breakup of the Indian family” has long since occurred, and section 1912(d) is inapplicable. Section 1915(a)’s placement preferences are inapplicable if no alternative party has formally sought to adopt the child. Biological Father did not seek to adopt, but only argued that his parental rights should not be terminated. View "Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl" on Justia Law