Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A child was born in Connecticut in July 2024 to parents who both resided in Connecticut at the time of the birth. The mother, who had previously lived in Massachusetts and had a long history with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF), moved to Connecticut several months before the birth, enrolling in a Connecticut healthcare program and living in a domestic violence shelter there. The father had also been living in Connecticut. The Massachusetts DCF, concerned about the child’s welfare due to the mother’s history and a recent domestic violence incident involving the father, arranged to take emergency custody of the child at the Connecticut hospital immediately after birth.Two days after the child’s birth, the Massachusetts DCF filed a care and protection petition in the Hampden County Division of the Juvenile Court Department, seeking temporary custody. The Juvenile Court granted temporary custody to the department without determining the basis for jurisdiction. Later, after hearings, a Juvenile Court judge found that Massachusetts had default jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), and subsequently, after joint conferences with a Connecticut judge, concluded that Massachusetts was the appropriate forum because Connecticut had declined jurisdiction. The parents and the child sought interlocutory appeal, and the Appeals Court allowed it. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then transferred the case on its own initiative.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction under the MCCJA because Connecticut was the child’s “home state,” as the child lived there from birth with the parents. The Court found that Massachusetts did not have default, emergency, or appropriate forum jurisdiction, as Connecticut had not declined jurisdiction before the Massachusetts court issued custody orders. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Care and Protection of Faraj" on Justia Law

Two minor children were removed from their parents’ care after their father was incarcerated for felony convictions and their mother was unable to care for them due to drug addiction and homelessness. The children were placed in foster care after the Kansas Department for Children and Families determined that neither parent could provide adequate care. The father, while incarcerated, had limited contact with the children and did not complete most tasks in the reintegration plan, citing the constraints of his imprisonment. The children exhibited significant behavioral and emotional issues while in foster care, and potential placement with a maternal grandmother was being considered.The Leavenworth County District Court adjudicated the children as in need of care and, after 16 months without progress toward reintegration, found both parents unfit. The court based its finding regarding the father on his felony conviction and imprisonment, failure of reasonable efforts by agencies to rehabilitate the family, and failure to carry out a reasonable reintegration plan. The court concluded that the father’s unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests, given their need for permanency and the availability of a stable placement with a relative.The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, focusing primarily on the father’s imprisonment as a statutory ground for unfitness and agreeing that the unfitness was unlikely to change soon. The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case and held that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings of unfitness and that the conduct or condition rendering the father unable to care for his children was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the children’s best interests. The judgments of both lower courts were affirmed. View "In re K.W.D." on Justia Law

Eric Skeens was convicted in Indiana of five counts of child molesting, based almost entirely on the detailed testimony of the child victim, K.W. There was no physical evidence presented at trial, but the prosecution relied on K.W.’s account, as well as supporting testimony from her mother, a school counselor, a therapist, and a sexual assault nurse who explained the absence of physical evidence. During closing arguments, Skeens’s attorney made a statement to the jury, “I believe her,” referring to K.W., which Skeens later argued constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.After his conviction, Skeens appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and found that the attorney’s statement did not prejudice the outcome, given the strength and detail of K.W.’s testimony. The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Skeens’s subsequent state post-conviction and federal habeas petitions were also denied. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied relief, concluding that Skeens had not shown the state court’s decision was unreasonable under federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case, applying the deferential standards required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and Strickland v. Washington. The court held that the Indiana Court of Appeals did not unreasonably determine the facts or unreasonably apply the Strickland standard when it concluded that there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different absent the attorney’s statement. The Seventh Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of Skeens’s habeas petition. View "Skeens v Neal" on Justia Law

In October 2021, five children were removed from their home under a protective custody warrant and placed into the temporary custody of San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department). Dependency petitions were filed for all five children. At the detention hearing, the mother denied Indian ancestry, and the father of two of the children also denied Indian ancestry but indicated potential Indian heritage on an ICWA form. The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and took jurisdiction over the children, removing them from parental custody and ordering reunification services for the mother.The mother appealed, arguing the Department failed to fulfill its duty to inquire about the children's potential Indian ancestry from extended family members, as required by former section 224.2, subdivision (b). The Court of Appeal held that the extended-family inquiry duty did not apply because the children were placed into temporary custody pursuant to a warrant under section 340, not section 306, and thus rejected the mother's argument.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the conflict regarding the scope of the initial inquiry duty under former section 224.2. The court concluded that the county welfare department has an extended-family inquiry duty in all cases where a child is placed into temporary custody, regardless of whether the child was removed from the home with or without a warrant. The court held that Assembly Bill 81, which clarified this duty, applies retroactively as it merely clarified existing law.The Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the matter to the juvenile court for compliance with the inquiry requirements of section 224.2. If the juvenile court finds the inquiry duty has been satisfied and ICWA does not apply, it shall reinstate the jurisdiction and disposition order. If ICWA applies, the court shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and California implementing provisions. View "In re Ja. O." on Justia Law

In November 2016, D.J., then 15 years old, was involved in a marijuana transaction that resulted in the shooting death of J.S. The State charged D.J. with felony murder, aggravated robbery, and possession of marijuana. D.J. agreed to plead no contest in exchange for the case being designated as an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution (EJJP) rather than being tried as an adult. The court sentenced D.J. to a juvenile correctional facility until he was 22 years, 6 months old, with an adult sentence of life without parole for 25 years for the felony murder count, among other penalties, stayed as long as D.J. complied with his juvenile sentence.In October 2021, D.J. was released on conditional release but was later found in a vehicle with firearms and marijuana, and in July 2022, he was caught driving without a license and possessing marijuana. The State moved to revoke D.J.'s juvenile sentence, and the district court found that D.J. had violated the conditions of his juvenile sentence by possessing firearms and marijuana and eluding law enforcement.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that substantial competent evidence supported the revocation of D.J.'s juvenile sentence. The court also held that under K.S.A. 38-2364, the district court was required to revoke the juvenile sentence and impose the adult sentence upon finding a violation of the juvenile sentence. The court rejected D.J.'s arguments that the district court had discretion to continue the stay of the adult sentence and that the district court could modify the adult sentence under K.S.A. 22-3716.The court also dismissed D.J.'s constitutional proportionality claims, stating that case-specific challenges could not be raised for the first time on appeal and that D.J. failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) for his categorical challenge. Finally, the court declined to review D.J.'s ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to the lack of a Van Cleave hearing and insufficient factual development in the record. View "In re D.J. " on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned the Lenawee Circuit Court, Family Division, to take jurisdiction over two minor children, CB and ME, and terminate the parental rights of their mother after CB alleged sexual abuse by two of the mother's male friends. CB claimed the mother was aware of the abuse and allowed it in exchange for drugs. The court authorized the petition, suspended the mother's parenting time, and ordered the children to remain with their father. At the combined adjudication and termination hearing, CB testified about the abuse, and the court found her testimony credible, concluding that grounds for adjudication and termination existed.The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (j), finding that termination was in the children's best interests. The mother appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that aggravated circumstances were not present under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii) because the mother was not the perpetrator of the criminal sexual conduct. The court also found that the trial court erred by not advising the mother of her right to appeal the removal order.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), DHHS is not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family when there is a judicial determination of aggravated circumstances as provided in MCL 722.638(1) and (2). The court concluded that the mother subjected CB to aggravated circumstances by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though she did not personally commit the act. The court also found that the trial court's failure to advise the mother of her right to appeal the removal order was plain error but did not affect her substantial rights. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's order terminating the mother's parental rights. View "In Re Barber/Espinoza Minors" on Justia Law

Justin J. (Father) appealed a jurisdiction finding and disposition order declaring his children, Hunter V. and B.V., dependents of the juvenile court. The court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), alleging the children's mother had a history of substance abuse and left the children without proper care. The petition also alleged Father had an extensive criminal history and was incarcerated, which placed the children at risk.The Los Angeles County Superior Court held a detention hearing where neither parent was present. The court detained the children and ordered monitored visitation for both parents. At the jurisdiction hearing, the court amended the petition to allege Father was unable to parent due to his incarceration and inability to make an appropriate plan for the children. The court sustained the amended allegations and proceeded with the disposition hearing, declaring the children dependents of the court and ordering reunification services for both parents.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court violated Father's due process rights by failing to provide notice of the amended allegations, which were based on a different set of facts and legal theory from the initial petition. The court also violated Father's statutory right to be present at the jurisdiction hearing, as required by Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d). The appellate court applied the Chapman standard for federal constitutional error and concluded the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court reversed the jurisdiction finding and disposition order as to Father and remanded the case for further proceedings with Father present unless he waives his right to be present. View "In re Hunter V." on Justia Law

The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) removed two Indian children from their home after finding their parents intoxicated and unable to care for them. The superior court adjudicated the children as being in need of aid, and the children’s tribe intervened. The children’s father moved to another state and, after initially failing to engage with OCS, eventually completed all case plan requirements. OCS then sought to place the children with their father through the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC), but the other state denied approval. Despite this, OCS sought permission from the superior court to release custody to the father while he was temporarily in Alaska.The superior court found that the ICPC was inapplicable to a release of custody to a parent under AS 47.14.100(p) and granted OCS’s request, dismissing the case. OCS released custody to the father before he left Alaska. The Native Village of Saint Michael appealed, arguing that the ICPC should apply and that the superior court failed to make adequate best interest findings.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that when OCS properly releases custody of a child to a parent under AS 47.14.100(p), the requirements of the ICPC do not apply, even if the parent plans to subsequently transport the child to another state. The court affirmed the superior court’s decision that the ICPC was inapplicable under the circumstances and that the other state’s approval was not required for placement with the father. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the case. View "Native Village of Saint Michael v. State" on Justia Law

A juvenile, D.W., was charged with child molestation and dissemination of material harmful to minors. During the initial hearing, the juvenile court allowed D.W.'s counsel to waive a formal advisement of rights without personally confirming with D.W. if he agreed to the waiver. After a fact-finding hearing, D.W. was adjudicated delinquent. D.W. appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred by not providing a formal advisement of rights and that his counsel's waiver was invalid because it was not confirmed that D.W. knowingly and voluntarily joined the waiver.The Marion Superior Court adjudicated D.W. delinquent, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The Court of Appeals found that the delinquency petition provided sufficient notice of the charges and that any errors in the advisement of rights did not rise to the level of fundamental error. The court also noted that D.W. exercised his constitutional rights during the proceedings.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed that the juvenile court erred by not providing a formal advisement of rights and that the waiver by D.W.'s counsel was invalid because the court did not personally confirm the waiver with D.W. However, the Supreme Court found the error to be harmless because D.W.'s substantial rights were not affected. D.W. was represented by counsel, exercised his constitutional rights, and there was no indication that the lack of formal advisement impacted the outcome of the case. Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's delinquency adjudication. View "D.W. v. State" on Justia Law

A thirteen-year-old girl, D.C., reported to her stepmother that her stepfather, Edgar Rene Garcia-Limon, had sexually abused her over several years, beginning when she was about four and continuing until she was eleven. During the investigation, D.C. described multiple incidents of abuse, and Garcia-Limon admitted to law enforcement and his wife that he had sexually touched D.C. on several occasions. Law enforcement also found firearms in the home, leading to additional charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Garcia-Limon on four counts: felon in possession of a firearm, aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, abusive sexual contact in Indian Country, and illegal reentry. Garcia-Limon challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for the sexual abuse counts, arguing that the eight-year date range was too broad and that the counts improperly charged a scheme rather than specific acts. The district court denied his motions, finding that the indictment properly charged a scheme of abuse and that the counts were not constitutionally defective or duplicitous. At trial, the jury found Garcia-Limon guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent terms, including life sentences for the sexual abuse counts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the indictment was constitutionally sufficient, whether the statutes allowed charging a scheme of abuse, whether the indictment was duplicitous, and whether there was a constructive amendment at trial. The court held that the indictment met constitutional requirements, that the statutes permitted charging a scheme of repeated, similar acts in a single count, and that there was no unconstitutional duplicity or constructive amendment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Garcia-Limon’s convictions on the challenged counts. View "United States v. Garcia-Limon" on Justia Law