Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A young adult, H.T., was adjudicated a ward of the court after admitting to a crime and was committed to a secure youth treatment facility. Upon completion of his baseline term, the juvenile court prepared to discharge him to probation supervision in the community. However, finding suitable housing proved difficult due to probation conditions: H.T. could not live with his mother, was ineligible for community organization housing due to a registration requirement, and could not be placed in the probation department’s usual facility because of its proximity to a high school. H.T. requested that the court order the County of Sacramento to pay for his stay at a transitional housing facility.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially granted H.T.’s request for 30 days of housing but later declined to order further payments, concluding it lacked statutory authority to require the County to pay for H.T.’s housing. The court instead directed the probation department to provide hotel vouchers and other support. H.T. appealed the orders denying his requests for continued payment of rent at the transitional housing facility.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the juvenile court had discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 900, subdivision (b), to order the County to pay for the support and maintenance of a ward, including necessary housing expenses. The appellate court found that the lower court misinterpreted its authority and abused its discretion by failing to recognize the full scope of its statutory power. The Court of Appeal vacated the juvenile court’s order and remanded the matter for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion under the correct legal standard, specifically to determine whether payment for H.T.’s housing was necessary at the relevant time. View "In re H.T." on Justia Law

A 16-year-old girl, Luna, was involved in a fatal altercation with another teenager, S.P.T., whom she knew only through social media. The conflict began when S.P.T. arrived at Luna’s home and initiated a physical fight by punching Luna. Luna responded by using a pocketknife, resulting in S.P.T.’s death. Prior to the incident, Luna had received social media messages that she interpreted as threats, including an image suggesting gang violence. The State charged Luna with murder, and she was tried as an adult.In the Kitsap County Superior Court, the State was permitted to introduce various pieces of social media evidence and a video of Luna’s police interrogation to suggest preexisting violent intent and lack of remorse. Luna argued self-defense and sought to introduce additional social media evidence to support her fear of S.P.T., but some of this evidence was excluded. The jury found Luna guilty of intentional, but not premeditated, second-degree murder. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that some social media evidence was improperly admitted but deemed the error harmless. The appellate court also held that a new statute requiring juveniles to be provided counsel before interrogation did not apply retroactively to Luna’s case.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. It held that the new statute, RCW 13.40.740, did not apply retroactively to Luna’s interrogation. However, the court found that Luna did not validly waive her right to silence, and her interrogation statements should have been excluded. The court also determined that several evidentiary rulings regarding social media evidence were erroneous and undermined the fairness of the trial. The Supreme Court vacated the jury verdict and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Luna" on Justia Law

A county attorney in Nebraska sought to challenge the appointment of a special prosecutor in a juvenile court case. The issue arose because the county attorney’s adult daughter, who works as a caseworker for the Department of Health and Human Services, was assigned to the same juvenile case and could potentially be called as a witness. The daughter testified that she did not discuss her work with her father and that her father’s position would not affect her testimony. The deputy county attorney assigned to the case also testified to his independence in handling the matter.The Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County, on its own initiative, raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest due to the familial relationship. The court found that the lack of disclosure of the relationship, combined with the organizational structure of the county attorney’s office, created a conflict of interest. Relying on Nebraska ethics advisory opinions and a prior appellate decision, the court concluded that the entire county attorney’s office should be disqualified and appointed a special prosecutor under Nebraska Revised Statute § 23-1205.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter as an original action in quo warranto. The court held that the existence of a conflict of interest must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is personal to the attorney involved. It found no evidence that the county attorney’s professional judgment or the deputy county attorney’s independence was compromised by the daughter’s involvement. The court concluded that the appointment of a special prosecutor was unwarranted under the facts presented and ordered the ouster of the special prosecutor, reinstating the county attorney’s office to the case. View "State ex rel. Condon v. Braaten" on Justia Law

A defendant, who was sixteen and seventeen years old at the time of two separate armed robberies in Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to charges arising from those incidents. In the first case, he used a BB gun resembling a real firearm and was sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA) to probation. While on probation, he committed a second robbery with an actual firearm and was sentenced to imprisonment and supervised release, not under the YRA. After completing all sentences and supervision, he moved to have both convictions set aside under a provision of the YRA that allows for such relief after completion of sentence, based on a set of statutory factors.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied both motions. The court found that several statutory factors weighed against the defendant, including the violent nature of the offenses, the fact that the second offense was committed while on supervision for the first, and a later temporary protective order issued against him. The court treated the defendant’s age at the time of the offenses as merely establishing eligibility for YRA relief, did not weigh in his favor the lack of prior YRA sentencing for the first conviction, and interpreted the factor regarding the ability to appreciate risks and consequences as relating to acceptance of responsibility after the fact.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in its application of the statutory factors. Specifically, the appellate court found that the trial court misapplied the factors concerning the defendant’s age, prior YRA sentencing, and ability to appreciate risks and consequences. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the motions to set aside the convictions, instructing the lower court to apply the statutory factors correctly. View "Williams v. United States" on Justia Law

A defendant committed several serious offenses, including first-degree murder and attempted murder, when he was 17 years old. In 2002, a jury convicted him of these crimes, and he was sentenced to a total term of 79 years to life with the possibility of parole. The sentence included both determinate and indeterminate terms, with firearm enhancements. The crimes occurred in 2000, and the defendant was not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), but rather to a lengthy term that could be considered the functional equivalent of LWOP.Years later, the defendant filed a petition in the Superior Court of Ventura County seeking recall of his sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A), which allows for resentencing of juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP. The trial court granted the petition, reasoning that the defendant’s 79-year-to-life sentence was functionally equivalent to LWOP, relying on the reasoning in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 and People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435. The court recalled the sentence, conditionally reversed the conviction and sentence, and certified the matter to juvenile court for further proceedings under Proposition 57. Meanwhile, the defendant received a youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, but was found unsuitable for parole.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that the defendant was not eligible for relief under section 1170(d)(1)(A) because he was not sentenced to LWOP, and that subsequent legislative changes, specifically section 3051, rendered the Heard rule moot. The court concluded that since the defendant had already received a parole hearing, he was not serving the functional equivalent of LWOP. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s orders. View "P. v. Lara" on Justia Law

A child was removed from his parents’ care shortly after birth due to concerns about the mother’s mental health, and placed in foster care under the supervision of Good Shepherd Services. The father, a Chinese immigrant whose primary language is Fuzhou, faced significant linguistic and economic barriers throughout the agency’s involvement. The agency did not provide interpretation services during family visits or at medical appointments, failed to expose the child to the parents’ language or culture, and did not assist the father in overcoming obstacles such as his work schedule, housing needs, or understanding of the mother’s mental illness. Despite the father’s efforts to maintain contact and participate in services when available, the agency’s actions and omissions hindered reunification.The New York County Family Court found that both parents had permanently neglected the child, concluding that the agency’s “minimal” efforts were nonetheless reasonable and sufficient under the law. The court determined that the child’s best interests were served by freeing him for adoption. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, holding that the agency had made diligent efforts, particularly in addressing the language barrier and providing services in Mandarin, and that the father had failed to maintain consistent contact or plan for the child’s future.The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that the agency failed, as a matter of law, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it undertook diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. The agency’s minimal and inadequate actions did not satisfy its statutory burden, particularly given the father’s linguistic and economic challenges. The Court ordered dismissal of the petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. View "In re K.Y.Z. (W.Z.)" on Justia Law

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