Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A child, R.L., was injured in a car accident while his father was driving under the influence of alcohol and his mother was holding him on her lap without a car seat. Both parents were young, and neither had a prior criminal record or child welfare history. The accident resulted in R.L. suffering a nondisplaced skull fracture, but he was discharged from the hospital after a few days and appeared to be recovering well. Following the incident, the family was provided with a car seat, and both parents expressed remorse for their actions. The mother continued to care for R.L. in her parents’ home, and the father had no contact with the child after the accident due to his pending criminal case.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that R.L. was at risk of harm due to parental neglect and the father’s alleged ongoing alcohol abuse. The juvenile court detained R.L. from his father but released him to his mother under supervision. After considering evidence and arguments, the juvenile court found that the incident was isolated, both parents were remorseful, and there was no evidence of ongoing substance abuse or risk of harm. The court dismissed the petition, declining to take jurisdiction over R.L.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed whether the evidence compelled a finding of jurisdiction as a matter of law under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The appellate court held that a single episode of endangering conduct, without evidence of likely recurrence or ongoing risk, did not warrant jurisdiction. The order dismissing the dependency petition was affirmed. View "In re R.L." on Justia Law

Two children, Claudia and Leila, were declared dependents of the court after an incident in which their parents, Wendy C. (Mother) and Michael M. (Father), engaged in a domestic altercation in the children’s presence, with Father under the influence of methamphetamine and in possession of a knife. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed petitions alleging parental substance abuse and failure to protect the children. The juvenile court sustained these allegations, removed the children from Father’s custody, and initially placed them with Mother. Later, after Mother failed to comply with court-ordered counseling and tested positive for drugs, the children were removed from her care as well. Reunification services were terminated, and the court ultimately found the children adoptable, terminating both parents’ rights and designating the current caretaker as the prospective adoptive parent.Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the Department and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the California Indian Child Welfare Act (Cal-ICWA). The Department had interviewed the parents, both grandmothers, and a paternal aunt, all of whom denied knowledge of Indian ancestry. However, the Department did not inquire of other extended family members, including the maternal grandfather, maternal aunt, maternal uncle, and paternal grandfather, despite having or being able to obtain their contact information.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, held that the Department did not fulfill its duty under section 224.2, subdivision (b), to interview all reasonably available extended family members regarding possible Indian ancestry. The court conditionally reversed the orders terminating parental rights and remanded the case for further ICWA and Cal-ICWA inquiry and compliance. If the children are found to be Indian children, a new hearing must be held; otherwise, the original orders will be reinstated. View "In re Claudia R." on Justia Law

A seventeen-year-old defendant was charged with murder after the shooting death of a victim in a Bridgeport housing complex stairwell. Surveillance footage showed the defendant leading the victim into the building and exiting alone minutes later, covering his face with a mask. The victim was later found naked and bleeding outside the basement door, having been shot six times. Police investigation led to a search of the defendant’s home, where a .45 caliber pistol and matching ammunition were found in his bedroom. The defendant, interviewed at home in the presence of his legal guardian, admitted to owning the gun and being with the victim but denied involvement in the shooting. Nineteen minutes into the interview, he invoked his right to remain silent, but questioning continued. The defendant was later located in Florida and returned to Connecticut for trial.In the Superior Court for the judicial district of Fairfield, the defendant moved to suppress statements made during the police interview, arguing he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The court found, under the totality of the circumstances, that the waiver was valid, considering the defendant’s age, education, prior experience with law enforcement, and the presence of his guardian. The court suppressed only statements made after the defendant invoked his right to remain silent. The jury convicted the defendant of murder, and he was sentenced to forty-five years’ incarceration.On appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the defendant challenged the validity of his Miranda waiver, sought greater protection under the state constitution, alleged prosecutorial impropriety, and objected to a consciousness of guilt jury instruction. The Supreme Court held that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, declined to adopt a rule requiring consultation with an interested adult before a juvenile’s waiver, found no prosecutorial impropriety, and determined any error in the consciousness of guilt instruction was harmless. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

John Doe, a Native American juvenile and member of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, was charged in federal court with multiple offenses, including kidnapping a minor on tribal land for the purpose of physical assault. The government filed a six-count juvenile information, and Doe admitted to certain charges, including kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, and provided a factual basis for his admissions. The events occurred in a trailer on the Wind River Indian Reservation, where Doe assaulted two minor victims and instructed one to remain in a closet as he left the scene.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held an admission hearing, where Doe, with counsel, admitted to the relevant charges. The court found a sufficient factual basis and conditionally accepted the admissions. After a delinquency hearing, Doe was adjudicated delinquent on several counts and committed to detention and supervision. Following the district court’s judgment, the Tenth Circuit decided United States v. Murphy, which clarified that the “holds” element of federal kidnapping requires proof the victim was detained for an appreciable period beyond that necessary to commit any related offense. Doe appealed, arguing his admission was not knowing or voluntary because he was not informed of this temporal requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case under the plain error standard. The court held that Murphy did not clearly establish the temporal requirement as an essential element of kidnapping, nor did Doe demonstrate that the district court’s failure to inform him of this requirement was a plain error under well-settled law. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment of delinquency. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

A defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder for crimes committed at age 17, alongside an adult codefendant. The jury found true allegations of gang involvement and personal use of a firearm, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 75 years to life, plus additional time for unrelated carjacking offenses. After serving 15 years, the defendant petitioned for recall and resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170(d), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole and that he met several statutory eligibility criteria, including having committed the offense with an adult codefendant.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the petition, held a hearing, and denied relief. The court found that none of the eligibility criteria were satisfied, reasoning that the adult codefendant’s conviction had been vacated under a separate statute and that the defendant had not shown sufficient rehabilitation. The court also considered the defendant’s juvenile record and prison disciplinary history, concluding that he lacked potential for rehabilitation.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and interpreted the statutory language de novo. The appellate court held that the defendant satisfied the criterion of having committed the offense with an adult codefendant, as the adult was charged and convicted for the same incident, even though her conviction was later vacated due to a change in law. The court reversed the trial court’s order denying the petition and remanded the case for a resentencing hearing in accordance with section 1170(d), without expressing an opinion on the appropriate sentence. View "People v. Gomez" on Justia Law

A man was charged in 2002 with multiple sexual offenses involving three minor males. In 2003, he entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to several counts of committing lewd acts on children aged 14 or 15 and one count of oral copulation with a victim under 16, which was amended from a charge of forcible oral copulation to a nonforcible offense. He did not admit to using force or violence in his plea, but the factual basis for the plea referenced police reports describing acts involving force. He was sentenced to state prison in accordance with the plea agreement.In 2005, two psychologists evaluated him for commitment as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) under California Penal Code section 2962. A chief forensic psychiatrist certified that he met the criteria, including having committed a crime involving force or violence, based on documentary evidence such as probation and police reports. The Board of Parole Hearings affirmed the certification. He did not challenge the certification in superior court at that time. He remained in custody under annual recommitment petitions, and his only prior challenge was an unsuccessful appeal of a 2022 recommitment order.After that, he filed a habeas corpus petition in Fresno County Superior Court in 2023, arguing that his conviction did not qualify as an MDO offense and that reliance on hearsay in the probation report violated his constitutional rights. The superior court denied the petition, finding the probation report admissible and sufficient to establish use of force.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that a habeas corpus petition is a proper vehicle to challenge an initial MDO certification based on static factors, even years later. The court found that the evidence was sufficient under the law at the time of certification, and that subsequent changes in evidentiary standards were not retroactive. The court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. View "In re Grinder" on Justia Law

A deadly shooting occurred at a house party in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in July 2021. During a chaotic altercation, multiple gunshots were fired, resulting in the death of Nicodemus Gonzales and damage to a vehicle driven by Jayissa Borrunda. Eyewitnesses described seeing the defendant and his cousin brandishing guns with laser sights. Forensic evidence was inconclusive as to which weapon caused the fatal injury. The defendant, who was seventeen at the time, was charged as a Serious Youthful Offender with first-degree (willful and deliberate) murder and other related offenses.The District Court of Doña Ana County acquitted the defendant of first-degree (willful and deliberate) murder but allowed the case to proceed to the jury on first-degree felony murder, predicated on aggravated assault, as well as other charges. The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree felony murder (as an accomplice to aggravated assault), aggravated assault, two counts of conspiracy, and shooting at a motor vehicle. The court imposed a thirty-year sentence for felony murder, an enhanced sentence for aggravated assault, and additional concurrent sentences for the other convictions.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reviewed the case. It held that aggravated assault is a noncollateral felony and cannot serve as the predicate for felony murder; therefore, the defendant’s felony murder conviction must be vacated as a legal nullity. The Court further held that double jeopardy does not bar retrial for felony murder or its lesser-included offenses when a conviction is reversed for a nonexistent crime, as this constitutes trial error rather than an acquittal. The Court also vacated one conspiracy conviction for lack of evidentiary support and reversed the four-year firearm enhancement as unauthorized by statute. The remaining convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Revels" on Justia Law

Two children were placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services after child protection proceedings were initiated against their parents in 2020 and 2021. The Department later filed petitions to terminate the parents’ rights, and the District Court entered judgments terminating those rights in March 2023. The children were placed with licensed foster parents for nineteen months, but were removed from their care in September 2024 following a report from the older child’s school regarding an incident involving the foster father.After the removal, the foster parents filed motions in the District Court (Springvale and Biddeford) seeking to intervene in the child protection case and requesting expedited judicial review of the children’s placement. They argued that their interests as prospective adoptive parents warranted party status. The Department opposed the motions, citing the children’s best interests and the purposes of the Child Protection Act. On November 6, 2024, the District Court summarily denied both motions. The foster parents appealed, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court directed the parties to address whether the orders were appealable under the relevant statute.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the orders denying intervention and expedited judicial review are interlocutory and not appealable under 22 M.R.S. § 4006, which strictly limits appeals in child protection matters to three types of orders: jeopardy orders, judgments terminating parental rights, and medical treatment orders. The Court clarified that it lacks authority to create judicial exceptions to this statutory limitation, even for denials of intervention. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. View "In re Children of Krystal W." on Justia Law

A group of teenagers and young adults devised a plan to rob and murder a man, Justin McKinney, and his girlfriend, Anna Franklin, as revenge for a drug-related incident involving one of the conspirators’ brothers. On the night of the crime, several of the group entered the victims’ home, where one participant shot and killed McKinney, and another shot and wounded Franklin. The group then fled, disposed of weapons, and made incriminating statements. Franklin survived and identified some of the assailants. Physical evidence, including firearms and shell casings, corroborated the events described by witnesses and participants.After the incident, several co-defendants pleaded guilty, while one was tried separately. The appellant, who was a juvenile at the time, was tried by a jury in the Superior Court of Fannin County and found guilty on all counts, including malice murder, attempted murder, and related offenses. He was sentenced to life in prison plus additional consecutive and concurrent terms. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The appellant argued that his custodial statements should have been suppressed due to his age, learning disability, and other factors; that the trial court erred by modifying a pattern jury instruction to include “age” as a factor not to influence the jury; and that a post-incision autopsy photograph was improperly admitted. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court did not err in admitting the custodial statements, as the totality of the circumstances showed a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights. The Court also found no plain error in the jury instruction and no abuse of discretion in admitting the autopsy photograph. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to a report that a father struck his nine-year-old daughter, LC, in the head, causing her to fall and hit the floor. LC also reported verbal abuse, fear of retaliation, and concerns about inappropriate sexual behavior by her father, who is a registered sex offender. LC had a history of sexual exploitation or abuse by family members. The Wyoming Department of Family Services removed LC from the home, and the State filed a petition alleging physical and verbal abuse. The juvenile court placed LC in the Department’s custody and ordered supervised visits. The father admitted to the abuse allegations, and LC was adjudicated as a neglected child. A case plan was developed for the father, requiring him to complete a psychosexual evaluation, attend counseling, and meet other conditions. The father failed to complete the evaluation on time and did not engage in therapy, despite multiple referrals and reminders.The District Court of Goshen County initially ordered reunification as the permanency plan. After the father eventually completed the psychosexual evaluation, the Multidisciplinary Team recommended changing the plan to adoption, citing the father’s high risk of re-offending and ongoing safety concerns. The Department reported that the father had not made meaningful progress on his case plan, and LC’s therapist testified to LC’s fear of her father. Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found the Department made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification, but those efforts were unsuccessful due to the father’s lack of engagement and risk factors. The court changed the permanency plan to adoption and ceased reunification efforts.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, as the Department’s efforts were reasonable and reunification was not in LC’s best interest. The court also held that the juvenile court did not commit plain error by declining to adopt a concurrent permanency plan. The decision of the juvenile court was affirmed. View "L.C. v. State" on Justia Law