Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court denying Appellant's request for relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(6), holding that the new jurisdictional rule announced in K.C.G. v. State, 156 N.E.3d 1281 (Ind. 2020), does not apply retroactively in a collateral attack to render a final delinquency adjudication void.Prior to 2021, the Juvenile Code defined a "delinquent act" only as an act committed by a child "that would be an offense if committed by an adult." In K.C.G., the Supreme Court concluded that Ind. Code 35-47-10-5 (the dangerous-possession-of-a-firearm statute) expressly applied only to child and thus could never be committed by an adult. At issue in this case was whether the jurisdictional rule announced in K.C.G. applies retroactively to collaterally attack a final delinquency adjudication as void. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court in this case denying the relief sought by Appellant under Trial Rule 60(B)(6), holding that this Court's K.C.G. decision does not apply retroactively. View "M.H. v. State" on Justia Law

Jane Doe appealed a district court’s decision to uphold the magistrate court’s judgment that Doe committed a battery—placing Doe within the purview of the Juvenile Corrections Act. Doe argued the magistrate court erred by using and applying the self-defense law reflected in Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions 1517 and 1518, instead of Idaho Code section 19-202A, Idaho’s “stand your ground” statute. Doe contended the statute’s legal standards differed from Instructions 1517 and 1518, and that the statutory standards should have been applied to her self-defense claim. To this, the Idaho Supreme Court disagreed: the "stand your ground" statute codified aspects of Idaho self-defense law that existed for over 100 years at common law, without abrogating those aspects it left uncodified. Thus, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err in upholding the magistrate court’s use and application of the pattern instructions, which presumptively reflected the elements of self-defense at common law. View "Idaho v. Jane Doe (2021-38)" on Justia Law

M.C. (mother) appealed the termination of parental rights to two of her children (the children) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends that the juvenile court failed to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the children under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA). The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) responded that by failing to raise the issue, mother forfeited her right to raise it on appeal; alternatively, the Department argued that substantial evidence supports the court’s assertion of jurisdiction in this case. Mother also contended the juvenile court and the Department failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) and related California statutes.   The Second Appellate District concluded the forfeiture doctrine does not bar mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s compliance with the UCCJEA, and the error requires conditional reversal of the parental rights termination orders with directions to the court to undertake the process that the UCCJEA requires. This disposition will permit mother to raise the unopposed ICWA arguments she makes on appeal. The court explained that here, the usual benefit from the application of the forfeiture doctrine—to encourage parties to bring issues to the trial court—would not be conferred under the facts of this case. Thus, although the Department or mother could have done more to urge the juvenile court to undertake the UCCJEA process, the objective facts supporting the need for such a process were readily apparent from the record. View "In re L.C." on Justia Law

The Department of Children and Family Services detained infant boy S.S. at birth, based on exigency, alleging his parents abused drugs and S.S. was born testing positive for various drugs. The juvenile court detained S.S. from his parents and placed him with his maternal aunt and uncle. The mother and father both denied Indian ancestry. The maternal aunt, however, said that the mother might have Yaqui heritage. The Department, in turn, notified the Pascua Yaqui tribe, which replied S.S. was not eligible for membership: the tribe would not intervene. The Department never asked paternal extended family members about the possibility of Indian ancestry. The court terminated parental rights in favor of a permanent plan of adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle, who were the caretakers and prospective adoptive parents. The mother appealed. At issue is the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, sections 1901 and following title 25 of the United States Code (the Act, or ICWA) and its California counterpart.   The Second Appellate District conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remanded the matter to the juvenile court with directions to order the Department to inquire of the three paternal extended family members previously identified whether S.S. may be an Indian child. The court explained that the Department’s failure prejudices tribes. The Department had contact information for three extended paternal family members but did nothing with it, thus denying tribes the benefit of the statutory promise. It would be a miscarriage of justice to deny tribes the benefit of this legislation. View "In re S.S." on Justia Law

G.C. brings this interlocutory appeal from a family division order denying his request for youthful-offender status. The State charged youth with felony sexual assault in October 2021. On appeal, G.C. argued the evidence did not support the court’s finding that there was insufficient time to meet youth’s treatment and rehabilitation needs. After review of the family division order, the Vermont Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "In re G.C." on Justia Law

In May 2022, the juvenile court granted a motion to transfer defendant minor T.A. from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. T.A. argued the Court of Appeal should remand so the juvenile court could reconsider its ruling in light of recent ameliorative changes to the law enacted by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). The State conceded that the changes applied retroactively to a minor, like T.A., whose case was not final when they took effect. Nevertheless, the State argued, no remand was necessary here because there was no reasonable probability the juvenile court would have reached a different result under the amended law. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed and therefore affirmed. View "In re T.A." on Justia Law

Appellant Madera County Department of Social Services (department) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined hearing for family reunification review and disposition from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871 petition on November 15, 2021. The department contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered the department to provide additional reunification services to L.V. (mother) for her dependent children Damian L. and Jesse A. (collectively “the children”).   The Fifth Appellate District reversed the juvenile court’s order continuing mother’s reunification services. The court remanded to the juvenile court with directions to vacate its order continuing mother’s family reunification services. The court explained that the juvenile court erred in failing to consider the entire time period since the children’s initial removal when it calculated the 18-month statutory limit on reunification services. By the time the juvenile court ordered mother’s reunification services to continue in November 2021, mother had received approximately 26 months of services, which was well over the 18-month limit. View "In re Damian L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court adjudicating Appellant delinquent on two charges of attempting to burn a public building, holding that that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 5A, the attempted arson statute, is a specific intent crime.Appellant was arraigned in the juvenile court after he performed the TikTok "penny challenge" twice at his school, leading to his adjudication. On appeal, Appellant argued that section 5A requires proof of specific intent and that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the specific intent to burn or set fire to the building. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) attempt to burn a public building is a specific intent crime; and (2) the evidence demonstrated that Appellant specifically intended his conduct and its consequences. View "Commonwealth v. Qasim Q." on Justia Law

After determining that Father’s delusions and paranoia put A.G.(age 14) at risk of serious harm, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction, ordered that A.G. be removed from Father’s custody, and ordered reunification services and a psychological evaluation. At the six-month hearing, the Agency reported that Father had received his case plan several months earlier but had not signed the plan nor engaged in recommended services. Father also resisted psychological evaluation. At the 12-month hearing, the Agency reported that Father had made moderate progress. The court granted an extension, finding that the Agency had provided reasonable services. At the 18-month hearing, the Agency reported that returning A.G. to Father’s custody still presented a substantial risk of detriment to her well-being and recommended a permanency planning hearing. The court found that the Agency had not provided reasonable services between the 12- and 18-month hearings but declined to exercise its discretion to continue the case, noting Father’s uneven progress.The California Supreme Court affirmed. Reasonable reunification services must be offered to qualifying parents for a minimum of six or 12 months, depending on the child’s age, and generally may be extended for up to 18 months. The court was not automatically required to grant a further extension based on its finding that reasonable services were not provided during the 12- to 18-month extension. Once a child has been out of the parent’s custody for 18 months, the law ordinarily requires the court to proceed to set a hearing to determine a permanent plan. View "Michael G. v. Superior Court of Orange County" on Justia Law

Minor S.S. (minor) appealed an order transferring him from the juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction, pursuant to former Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.1. Minor contended: (1) the juvenile court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) subsequent legislation applies retroactively and requires reversal because the juvenile court did not comply with new requirements for transfer hearings. The State conceded the second argument. The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the new law applied retroactively and therefore reversal and remand was appropriate for an amenability hearing in compliance with the new law. View "In re S.S." on Justia Law