dic5

9 Key Figures in Juvenile Court Proceedings

Chapter Learning Objectives On completion of this chapter, students should be able to do the following:

Explain the roles of the prosecutor, defense counsel, judge, and probation officer in juvenile court Discuss differences between private and state-appointed defense counsel Discuss conflicting views of the relationship between the prosecutor and defense counsel Explain plea bargaining Discuss the roles of child and family services and court-appointed advocates in juvenile court proceedings

What Would You Do?

Bill has been a juvenile probation officer for over 11 years. On his caseload is a 15-year-old teen by the name of Malik who lives in an area of the city where the school system and surrounding community is infested with gang activity and drug selling. He comes from a challenged family life for his father is in prison and his mother works two jobs so she can scrape up enough to make it from month to month. He has two older brothers and several cousins who are members of an area gang, and his sister is currently dating a gang banger. Malik also has a younger brother and sister, ages 10 and 8, whom he takes care of when they come home from school.

Bill does not really see any way out for Malik and, from the looks of it, has determined that it is only by luck that Malik has not yet been brought into the gang family. Bill recalls talking with Malik’s mother, KiKi, who did not know how she could continue to keep him from rubbing shoulders with gang members. Bill remembers the conversation:

Bill: “You know, KiKi, it is just a matter of time until he is bangin’ with the rest of them . . . the only thing that will prevent this is if he does not stay in this area . . . even then, he could still join some other set in another area of this or some other city.”

KiKi: “I know, but I don’t have anywhere to go and we cannot afford to move. I don’t have the money to move and start all over.”

Bill: “I don’t know what kind of assistance there might be . . . what if you placed him some place where he would have structure and be away from all the gang influence?”

KiKi: “I really just don’t know what to do . . . if I have him placed in a residential facility, he will hate me for it. But there ain’t nothing but bad news here, and I can’t get him to stay home when I am at work at night. . . . I don’t know what to do.”

Bill thought about that conversation that happened just 3 days ago and then thought about Malik’s upcoming court date. Malik was caught smoking “purple” or “purp,” as it is sometimes called. As everyone on the streets knows, purp is a highly potent form of cannabis, not the typical “reggie” or regular pot that most people smoke. In addition, Malik was found “hanging out” or loitering around a business well after the store had closed. Bill, of course, thinks that it was Malik’s intent to case the store and, perhaps, break in.

Currently, Malik is doing well enough in school. He also appears to have some latent potential that is going untapped. Malik is surrounded by a number of negative and high-risk circumstances and does not have enough protective factors to keep him within a safe zone of behavior.

Bill thinks that Malik needs to be removed from the home to a more stable environment and has talked to the county child and family services agency about this. Bill has also talked with a supervisor of the Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program just to see about support that might be available for Malik.

Bill will need to make a recommendation to the judge to either have Malik placed in a residential facility for a few months to get him away from the noxious environmental influences or to allow Malik to continue staying with his mother, who cares about Malik but is not able to keep him in compliance with his community supervision requirements.

What complicates Bill’s decision is that the judge who presides over this case is more of a “lawgiver” rather than a “parent figure” with juveniles. Bill knows that to move Malik will leave nobody at home to take care of his younger brother and sister. Then again, he tells himself that he cannot allow Malik to stay at home to fulfill day care needs after school for his mother. Further, this would also overlook potential treatment options within the community.

Bill considers the reasonableness of any recommendations that he might provide, while the state’s child protection services agency attorney considers various options that can be requested of the judge. Meanwhile, Bill weighs both potential recommendations.

What Would You Do? 1. Do you think Bill should recommend that Malik be sent to a residential home or be given

more intensive probation and treatment programming while staying at home? 2. Should Bill attempt to find assistance for Malik’s mother, KiKi?

One of the alternatives available to the police in dealing with juvenile offenders or adults who commit offenses against children involves official action through the juvenile justice network or, in the case of adult perpetrators, the adult justice network. Once the decision to take official action has been made, juvenile court personnel become involved in the case. We use the term juvenile court personnel in a broad sense to include the prosecutor, defense counsel, judge, juvenile probation officer, and (in abuse and neglect cases) representatives from the department of children and family services (also known as child protective services, or CPS).

Prosecutor The final decision about whether a juvenile will be dealt with in juvenile court rests with the prosecutor. Regardless of the source of the referral (e.g., police officer, teacher, parent), the prosecutor may decide not to take the case to court and, for all practical purposes, no further official action may be taken on the case in question. The prosecutor, then, exercises an enormous amount of discretion in the juvenile (and adult) justice system (Stuckey, Roberson, & Wallace, 2004). Although the police officer may “open the gate” to the juvenile justice system, the prosecutor may close that gate. The prosecutor may do this without accounting for his or her reasons to anyone else in the system (except, of course, to the voters who elect the prosecutor to office, with the next election often occurring long after the case in question has been dismissed).

Clearly, there are some circumstances under which the prosecutor would be foolish to proceed with court action. For example, lack of evidence, lack of probable cause, or lack of due process may make it virtually impossible to prosecute a case successfully. There are, however, a number of somewhat less legitimate reasons for failure to prosecute. There have been instances where prosecutors have failed to take cases to court for political or personal reasons (e.g., when the juvenile in question is the son or daughter of a powerful and influential citizen) or because the caseload of the prosecutor includes an important or serious case in which successful prosecution will result in favorable publicity. As a result, the prosecutor may screen out or dismiss a number of “less serious” cases such as burglary and assault (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). In short, the prosecutor is the key figure in the justice system and is recognized as such by both defendants and defense counsel (Ellis & Sowers, 2001, p. 40; Laub & MacMurray, 1987; Mays & Winfree, 2000).

During recent years, however, the prosecutor has lost some discretion historically afforded to him or her because of discretionary controls enacted within state legislation. These controls have been designed to decrease the amount of discretion a prosecutor has in determining whether a case remains in the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or is waived to adult court. In Illinois, for example, it is mandated that the prosecutor request to transfer a juvenile to adult court if the child is 15 years of age or over, commits an act that is a forcible felony, and has previously been adjudicated delinquent or committed the act in conjunction with gang-based activity (Illinois Compiled Statutes [ILCS], ch. 705, sec. 405/5-805, 1999). There are also presumptive transfers that deal with violence involving firearms and other clearly stated legislative policies on when prosecutors may use their discretion to transfer juveniles to adult criminal court. The discretionary controls have not been designed to take away from the prosecutor’s role in court or to undermine the duties placed on the prosecutor but rather are in place to ensure that the

prosecutor is not abusing the position and power given to him or her by the court system. The discretionary controls are also a political response to the public’s recent outcries against juvenile violence. Despite the discretionary controls, prosecutors are still key figures in the juvenile court system (Backstrom & Walker, 2006; Neubauer & Fradella, 2013; Viljoen, Klaver, & Roesch, 2005).

The prosecutor’s key role in the American juvenile justice system has emerged slowly over time. Initially, the prosecutor or state’s attorney was seen as both unnecessary and harmful in juvenile court proceedings that were supposedly nonadversarial proceedings “on behalf of the juvenile” (U.S. Department of Justice, 1973). The Gault (In re Gault, 1967) decision, along with the decisions in Kent (Kent v. United States, 1966) and Winship (In re Winship, 1970), brought about a number of changes in juvenile court proceedings. Among these changes was a growing recognition of the need for legally trained individuals to represent both the state and the juvenile (and, in some instances, the juvenile’s parents) at all stages of juvenile justice proceedings. The need resulted from increased emphasis on procedural requirements and the adversarial nature of the proceedings.

Today the prosecutor is a key figure in juvenile justice because he or she determines whether a case will go to court, most waiver decisions, the nature of the petition, and (to a large extent) the disposition of the case after adjudication (the judge seldom imposes more severe punishment than is recommended by the prosecutor). Siegel & Welsh (2007) noted that it is likely that the prosecutor will continue to play a primary role in the juvenile justice system due to the constitutional safeguards provided to youthful offenders and to the publicity associated with juvenile crime.

In addition, there is a tendency on the part of some prosecutors to impose unofficial probation. The prosecutor indicates that he or she has a prosecutable case but also indicates that prosecution will be withheld if the suspect in question agrees to behave according to certain guidelines. These are often the same guidelines handed down by probation officers subsequent to an adjudication of delinquent, abused, or neglected. This amounts to a form of continuance under supervision without proving the charges in court and may result from an admission of the facts by the minor or a lack of objection to this procedure by the minor, his or her parents, and legal counsel. In essence, this procedure provides an alternative to official adjudication as a delinquent and is regarded as beneficial in that sense. However, although the use of unofficial probation is clearly beneficial to the prosecutor because it eliminates the need to prepare a case for court and may be beneficial for the juvenile court by reducing the number of official cases, unofficial probation has the same potential disadvantages as do informal adjustments by the police. In short, unofficial probation imposed by the prosecutor amounts to

punishment without trial, and the voluntary nature of this probation is highly questionable. Informal agreements may also work to the disadvantage of juveniles who are suspected of being abused or neglected and who are allowed to remain in their homes as a result of such agreements.

The building above has multiple courtrooms where juvenile cases are routinely heard. This building includes a detention facility where youth are housed.

Courtesy of the authors

However, Backstrom and Walker (2006) noted that the role of juvenile prosecutors, while still being that of a gatekeeper, requires much more than this in order to address the complexity of juvenile crime today. They noted that greater expertise is essential if prosecutors are to address violent crimes committed by juveniles, new laws dealing with victims’ rights, the transfer of youth to adult court, as well as the expanded jurisdiction of the juvenile court. According to Backstrom and Walker (2006), “Today’s juvenile prosecutor must not only serve as an advocate for justice, for the victim, and for community values, he or she must also serve as a negotiator and dispositional advisor in juvenile cases” (p. 965). It is important to understand that, whereas juvenile prosecutors do hold the key position in determining if a case will be heard in juvenile court, these court professionals do see different types of crimes and different youth on a routine basis; it becomes clear to them that not all juvenile offenders are the same. Indeed, just as our What Would You Do? feature demonstrated with Bill (the probation officer) and Malik, the probationer, there are a number of factors that may aggravate or mitigate a case. Even the prosecutors of these crimes realize this and, during plea bargaining, these prosecutors may modify their original charges to reflect these circumstances.

Regardless of the specific parameters of each case and the offenders involved, the

attorney for the state (prosecutor) participates in every proceeding of every stage of every case that is under the jurisdiction of the family court, whenever the state has an interest. Figure 9.1 provides an overview of the process by which prosecutors may determine if a juvenile case will be formally charged within the juvenile court system.

Defense Counsel The Institute of Justice Administration (IJA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) (1980a) described the responsibility of the legal profession to the juvenile court in Standard 2.3 of Standards Relating to Counsel for Private Parties. The IJA and ABA stated that legal representation should be provided in all proceedings arising from, or related to, a delinquency or in need of supervision action—including mental competency, transfer, postdisposition, probation revocation and classification, institutional transfer, and disciplinary or other administrative proceedings related to the treatment process—that may substantially affect the juvenile’s custody, status, or course of treatment.

Figure 9.1 Steps and Timelines for Engaging the Formal Juvenile Court System

Source: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2005).

Juvenile court proceedings involving delinquency and abuse are adversarial in nature in spite of the intent of the early developers of juvenile court philosophy. It is for this reason that the role of defense counsel (the attorney representing the defendant) has become increasingly important. Today, in most jurisdictions, all juveniles named in petitions are represented by counsel. In Illinois, for example, no proceeding under the state’s juvenile court act may be initiated unless the juvenile is represented by counsel (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/1–5, 1999). In many cases, the juvenile’s parents also have legal representation. In some cases, a guardian ad litem may be appointed by the court. The guardian ad litem is a person appointed by the court as a third party to protect the interests of the child both in court and while placed in social services (Davidson, 1981). In general, the guardian ad litem is used in abuse, neglect, and dependency cases where the minor is in need of representation because of immaturity (Sedlak, Doueck, Lyons, & Wells, 2005; Siegel & Welsh, 2007).

There are two basic categories of defense counsel: (1) private counsel and (2) court- appointed counsel. Private counselors are sometimes retained or appointed to represent the interests of juveniles in court. Frequently, however, juveniles are represented by court-appointed counsel (attorneys or public defenders). The former are typically drawn from a roster of practicing attorneys in the jurisdiction, whereas the latter are full-time salaried employees. Both are paid by the county or state (or by both) to represent defendants who do not have the money to retain private counsel. For many young lawyers interested in criminal law, the position of public defender represents a stepping- stone (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). In most areas, the public defender is paid a relatively low salary, but the position guarantees a minimal income that can be supplemented by private practice (Stuckey et al., 2004). For example, the most recent information available on defense systems for the indigent found that the average cost per case to state and local government for indigent defense was $5.37 per capita, ranging from a low of $0.11 per case in West Virginia to a high of $11.23 per case in Alaska (Barlow, 2000, p. 374).

In addition to the low personal pay, many public defender programs are inadequately funded (National Juvenile Defense Center, 2016; Wice, 2005). This makes the job of public defenders even more difficult because, in addition to being underpaid personally, they must work with fewer agency resources at their disposal (Wice, 2005). This low pay and inadequate agency funding have led to a reputation of providing low-quality representation (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013; Wice, 2005) that is further compounded by the fact that, understandably, many public defenders have short job tenures. These factors have contributed to a public image of ineptness that has become a virtual stigma for persons working in the role of public defender (Botch, 2006; Wice, 2005).

As a rule, public defender caseloads are heavy, investigative resources are limited, and many clients are, by their own admission, guilty or delinquent (Barlow, 2000; Stuckey et al., 2004). The public defender, therefore, spends a great deal of time negotiating pleas and often very little time talking with clients. In fact, sometimes a public defender in juvenile court will indicate to the judge that he or she is ready to proceed and then ask someone in the courtroom which of the several juveniles present is the client. As a result, public defenders often enjoy a less-than-favorable image among their clients (Barlow, 2000, pp. 377–379).

Some public defenders seem to have little interest in using every possible strategy to defend their clients (Botch, 2006; “Too Poor,” 1998; Wice, 2005). On occasion, prosecutors and juvenile court judges make legal errors to which public defenders raise no objections. Appeals initiated by public defenders in cases tried in juvenile court are relatively rare even when the chances of successful appeals seem to be good. There are also public defenders who pursue their clients’ interests with all possible vigor, but on the whole it appears that juveniles who have private counsel often fare better in juvenile court than do those who are represented by public defenders. There is little doubt that the office of public defender is frequently underfunded and that such underfunding is a major factor in most of the criticisms leveled at the office.

In response to the insufficient nature of the public defender system that is used in juvenile courts, the National Juvenile Defender Center (2016) has provided a series of recommendations. The NJDC notes that specific attention should be given to establishing a productive and realistic means for beginning lawyers to establish opportunities that might make juvenile defense a viable career choice. In particular, the NJDC recommends the following:

1. Support the expansion of public and private law school clinical and experiential learning.

2. Engage historically black colleges and universities, Latino serving institutions of higher education, and Native American colleges and universities.

3. Establish dedicated juvenile defense committees in bar associations. 4. Expand legal incubator programs to promote juvenile defense.

Although these recommendations might seem a bit unusual, the NJDC (2016) provides numerous examples of how these recommendations might work and/or how they have already been implemented in certain areas of the nation. The key point to noting the work of the NJDC is to showcase that the challenges associated with gaining defense counsel for juveniles are well known and understood by scholars, practitioners, and organizations associated with the court system. Unfortunately, the means by which these issues can be remedied are, perhaps, much more difficult to discern.

Whether defense counsel is private or public, his or her duties remain essentially the same. These duties are to see that the client is properly represented at all stages of the system, that the client’s rights are not violated, and that the client’s case is presented in the most favorable light possible regardless of the client’s involvement in delinquent or criminal activity (Pollock, 1994, pp. 145–152). To accomplish these goals, the defense counsel is expected to battle the prosecutor, at least in theory, in adversarial proceedings. However, the quality of representation afforded is not guaranteed. The public defender’s office is frequently understaffed, and private counsel is often too expensive to be considered an option. As Siegel and Senna (1994) noted, “Representation should be upgraded in all areas of the juvenile court system” (p. 557).

Relationship Between the Prosecutor and Defense Counsel: Adversarial or Cooperative? In theory, adversarial proceedings result when the “champion” of the defendant (defense counsel) and the “champion” of the state (prosecutor) do “battle” in open court, where the “truth” is determined and “justice” is the result. In practice, the situation is quite often different due to considerations of time and money on behalf of both the state and the defendant (Stuckey et al., 2004).

The ideal of adversarial proceedings is perhaps most closely realized when a well- known private defense attorney does battle with the prosecutor. The O. J. Simpson case of the 1990s is an excellent example (Bugliosi, 1997). Prominent defense attorneys often have competent investigative staffs and considerable resources in terms of time and money to devote to a case. Thus, the balance of power between the state and the defendant may be nearly even. This is generally not the case when defense counsel is a public defender who is often paid less than the prosecutor, often has less experience than the prosecutor, and generally has more limited access to an investigative staff than the prosecutor. For a variety of reasons, then, both defense counsel and the prosecutor may find it easier to negotiate a particular case rather than to fight it out in court because court cases are costly in terms of both time and money. The vast majority of adult criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargaining. A substantial proportion of delinquency and abuse and neglect cases are disposed of in this way as well. In fact, it has been suggested that justice in the United States is not the result of the adversarial system but rather the result of a cooperative network of routine interactions among defense counsel, the prosecutor, the defendant, and (in many instances) the judge (Barlow, 2000, p. 349; Blumberg, 1967; Sudnow, 1965).

In plea bargaining, both the prosecutor and defense counsel hope to gain through compromise (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013; Viljoen et al., 2005). The prosecutor wants the defendant to plead guilty—if not to the original charge, then to some less serious offense. Defense counsel seeks to get the best deal possible for his or her client, and this may range from an outright dismissal to a plea of guilty to some offense less serious than the original charge (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). The nature of the compromise depends on conditions such as the strength of the prosecutor’s case and the seriousness of the offense. Most often, the two counselors arrive at what both consider a “just” compromise, which is then presented to the defendant to accept or reject (Siegel, Welsh, & Senna, 2003). As a rule, the punishment to be recommended by the prosecutor is also negotiated. Thus, the nature of the charges, the plea, and the punishment are negotiated and agreed on before the defendant actually enters the courtroom. The adversarial system, in its ideal form at least, has been circumvented (Edwards, 2005; Stuckey et al., 2004). Perhaps a hypothetical example will help to clarify the nature and consequences of plea bargaining.

Consider Joe, a house burglar, who is seen breaking into a house. The break-in is reported to the police, who apprehend Joe in the house with a watch and some expensive jewelry belonging to the homeowner. The police decide to take official action. Because Joe is over 13 years of age and the offense is fairly serious, the prosecutor threatens to prosecute Joe as an adult in adult court. She also indicates that she intends to seek a prison sentence for Joe. Joe’s attorney, realizing that the prosecutor has a strong case, knows that he cannot get Joe’s case dismissed. He argues with the prosecutor that this is Joe’s first appearance before the juvenile court and that Joe is, after all, a juvenile. After some discussion, the prosecutor agrees to prosecute Joe in juvenile court provided that the allegation of delinquency is not contested. Joe’s attorney agrees provided that the prosecutor recommends only a short stay in a private detention facility in the community. Joe’s attorney then presents the deal to Joe and perhaps to Joe’s parents, indicating that it is the best he can do and recommending that Joe accept because he could be found guilty and sentenced to prison if he is tried in adult court. Joe accepts and the bargain is concluded. The case has been settled in the attorney’s offices. All that remains is to make it official during the formal court appearance. Most judges will concur with the negotiated plea.

The benefits of plea bargaining to the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the juvenile court are clear. The prosecutor is successful in prosecuting a case (she obtains an adjudication of delinquency), defense counsel has reduced the charges and penalty against his client, and all parties have saved time and money by not contesting the case in court. The juvenile may benefit as well given that he might have been convicted of burglary in adult court (if the judge had accepted the prosecutor’s motion to change jurisdiction) and

ended up in prison with a felony record. The dangers of plea bargaining, however, should not be overlooked. First, there is always the possibility that the motion to change jurisdiction might have been denied. Second, Joe might have been found not guilty even if he had been tried in adult court or might have been found not delinquent if his case had been heard in juvenile court. Third, because negotiations most often occur in secret, there is a danger that the constitutional rights of the defendant might not be stringently upheld. For example, Joe did not have the chance to confront and cross-examine his accusers. Finally, the juvenile court judge is little more than a figurehead, left only to sanction the bargain, in cases settled by plea bargaining. The juvenile court judge has the responsibility to see that the hearings are conducted in the best interests of both the juvenile and society and has the responsibility to ensure due process. Neither of these can be guaranteed in cases involving plea bargaining. A final concern in all plea bargaining processes, whether adult or juvenile, is that the victim seldom feels good about the bargain.

Juvenile Court Judge Theoretically, the juvenile court judge is the most powerful and central figure in the juvenile justice system, although he or she does not always exercise this power (Edwards, 2005). Noting that this is theoretically the case in the courthouse underlies the fact that there are many actors who are involved within the courtroom work group that processes a juvenile case (Edwards, 2005; Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). This courtroom work group tends to develop a sense of shared informal norms and understandings, with a strong organizational emphasis being placed on effective case processing (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013; Viljoen et al., 2005). Indeed, there will be the typical members of the adult courtroom work group; however, the juvenile court will also typically rely heavily on professional judgments of nonlawyers in assessing both the background of the juvenile and other circumstances such as the quality of family supervision (Hanser, 2007a; Viljoen et al., 2005). In many cases, the input of various mental health workers may weigh heavily in the judge’s decision (Hanser, 2007a; Viljoen et al., 2005).

In the end, however, it is the juvenile court judge who decides whether a juvenile will be adjudicated delinquent, abused, in need of intervention, dependent, or neglected. Because there is no jury in most instances, the decision of the judge is final unless an appeal overturns the judge’s decision. In addition, the judge makes the final determination about the disposition of the juvenile (Stahl, 2008b). Therefore, the juvenile court judge decides matters of law, matters of fact, and the immediate futures of those who come before the bench (see Figure 9.2 for an overview of the adjudication hearing process). Juvenile judges likewise tend to have a wide degree of discretion when

fulfilling their role (Leiber & Fox, 2005; Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). Despite this flexibility, assignment to the juvenile court is often not considered to be a highly desired position among many judges, and many may seek rotation as a means of advancing their judicial careers (Stuckey et al., 2004).

In many states, hearing officers known as referees or commissioners are appointed to assist juvenile court judges (see In Practice 9.1 and 9.2). These hearing officers typically submit recommendations that must be certified by a judge before they have the effect of law (Roberts, 1989, p. 114). Within the confines of legislative mandates, juvenile judges rule on pretrial motions involving issues such as arrest, search and seizure, interrogation, and lineup identification. They make decisions about the continued detention of children prior to hearings, and they make decisions about plea bargaining agreements and informal adjustments (Siegel et al., 2003; Stahl, 2008b). They hold bench hearings, rule on appropriateness of conduct, and settle questions concerning evidence and procedure. They guide the questioning of witnesses. They decide on treatment for juveniles. They preside over waiver hearings, and they handle appeals where allowed by statute (Siegel & Welsh, 2007; Stahl, 2008b).

Although judges in some jurisdictions are assigned to juvenile court on a full-time basis, there are also many juvenile court judges who serve on a part-time basis. The latter are circuit judges who perform judicial functions in civil, criminal, probate, and other divisions of the court and are occasionally assigned to juvenile court. It is difficult for such judges to become specialists in juvenile court proceedings, and some are not as well versed in juvenile law as they could be, although many perform well.

Figure 9.2 Steps and Timelines for the Trial/Adjudication Hearing Process

Source: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2005).

In Practice 9.1: The Role of Referees in District Court Hearing and resolving thousands of cases a year, referees play a key role in the administration of justice in Hennepin County District Court. Lawyers who regularly work in the specialty courts are very familiar with the referees and how they function, but for many lawyers and the public at large, the role of referees is new territory. This article explains how referees function in our court system. In addition, it highlights an important change in the law regarding the review of referee decisions in Family Court. One sidebar accompanying this article profiles the three referees most recently appointed to the Hennepin County District Court, while another reacquaints us with the 13 other referees who have already been serving in the court.

The Referee Position Currently, 16 district court referees serve in the Fourth Judicial District, including six in Family Court, three in Juvenile Court, two in Housing Court, four in Probate/Mental Health Court, and one Court Trials referee. The referee position is a creature of statute, with the general authority arising from Minn. Stat. § 484.70 (2004). The statute authorizes the chief judge of the judicial district to appoint one or more suitable persons to act as referees. Referees hold office at the pleasure of the judges of the district court and must be “learned in the law.” The statute enumerates the duties and powers of a referee. A referee is to hear and report all matters assigned by the chief judge and recommend findings of fact, conclusions of law, temporary and interim orders, and final orders for judgment. Thus, a referee has broad authority to make both procedural and substantive decisions in a case to which the referee is assigned. However, a referee may not hear a contested trial, hearing, motion, or petition if a party or attorney for a party objects in writing to the assignment of a referee to hear the matter. A party who objects to a referee hearing a contested matter must serve and file the objection within 10 days of notice of the assignment of the referee but not later than the commencement of any hearing before a referee.

Referee Decisions All recommended orders and findings of a referee are subject to confirmation by a judge. Upon the conclusion of a hearing, the statute requires that the referee transmit the court file to a judge together with written recommended findings and orders. Once confirmed, the referee’s recommended findings and orders become the findings and orders of the court. In general, a party may seek judicial review of any recommended order or finding of a referee by serving and filing notice within 10 days of effective notice of the recommended order or finding. The notice of review must specify the grounds for review and the specific provisions of the recommended findings or orders in dispute. The court, upon receipt of a notice of review, sets a time and place for a review hearing.

S o u rc e :S o u rc e : Chawla (2006). Reprinted with permission from the author and The Hennepin Lawyer.

Questions to Consider 1. True or False: Referees need not have formal legal training, per se.

2. Multiple Choice: In cases where a party or the attorney for that party objects to the use of a referee to decide a court proceeding, the referee may not engage in which of the following?

a. Contested trial b. Hearing motion c. Petition d. All of the above e. None of the above

3. In your opinion, what are the potential advantages to using referees in juvenile court? What about potential pitfalls?

Juvenile court judges may be placed along a continuum ranging from those who see themselves largely as parent figures to those who are concerned mainly about the juvenile court as a legal institution. The “parent figure” judge is often genuinely concerned about the total well-being of juveniles who appear before the court. He or she is likely to overlook some of the formalities of due process in an attempt to serve as a parent figure who both supports and disciplines juveniles. This judge’s primary concern is serving what he or she perceives as the best interests of the juveniles who appear in court, based on the assumption that they must have problems even though they might not have committed the specific acts that led to the filing of the petitions or been victims of abuse or neglect in the specific instances in question (Ford, Chapman, Mack, & Pearson, 2006). Often these judges talk to the juveniles and/or parents involved in an attempt to obtain expressions of remorse or regret (Edwards, 2005; Ford et al., 2006; Viljoen et al., 2005). Once these expressions are given, the acts involved can often be “forgiven,” and attention centers on how to best help the juveniles to avoid future trouble or victimization. If these expressions of remorse or regret are not given, the judge frequently resorts to a role as disciplinarian, sometimes overlooking the facts in the case.

There is a tendency among parent-figure judges to continue juvenile cases under supervision for various lengths of time. These judges apparently assume that an adjudication of delinquency, abuse, neglect, or minor requiring authoritative intervention (MRAI) is less desirable than using the threat of adjudication in an attempt to induce acceptable behavior. Although most juvenile court acts provide for judicial continuance, this action can be carried to the extreme in situations where the case against the juvenile, parent, or guardian is weak and the continuance period is long. These continuances amount to punishment without trial much as informal adjustments and unofficial probation do. It is also not unlikely that during this period the child will be caught for another offense and may be brought to court again. This creates a revolving-door effect.

At the other end of the continuum is the “lawgiver” judge, who is concerned primarily that all procedural requirements are fulfilled. This type of judge has less interest in the

total personality of the juvenile than in the evidence of the case at hand. The lawgiver judge dismisses cases that the prosecutor cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in abuse and neglect cases, cannot demonstrate a preponderance of evidence for) and does not believe that it is his or her duty to prescribe treatment for juveniles who have not committed the offenses of which they have been accused or who cannot be shown to have been victims of abuse or neglect. The dispositions of the lawgiver judge are based on statutory requirements more than on the personal characteristics of the parties involved (see In Practice 9.2).

Most juvenile court judges fall somewhere between the two extremes, reflecting the lack of consensus about the proper role of the juvenile court discussed in Chapter 1. Most judges make a sincere effort to maximize legal safeguards for juveniles while attempting to act in the best interests of both the juveniles and society (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2005). They ensure that legal counsel is available, they try to arrive at objective decisions during adjudicatory hearings, and they try to ensure that the disposition of each case takes into account the needs of the juvenile involved. Tower (1993) described the efforts of the juvenile court judge in abuse and neglect cases as follows:

Deprived of the support of a jury (in most cases), the judge must base the final decision on the report of the investigator, on what has been heard in the courtroom, on the judge’s own experience, and often on the assumption of what will be best for all concerned. (p. 293)

In Practice 9.2: The Role of Judges in Juvenile Drug Court The judge’s involvement in and supervision of youth participation in the juvenile drug court is essential. Frequent court hearings provide an open forum where everyone involved in a case can gather to share information, discuss issues, and reach consensus on the next step(s) toward a youth’s successful rehabilitation and completion of the juvenile drug court program. Hearings also provide leadership and team building opportunities for juvenile drug court staff.

As they conduct judicial reviews, judges need to take into account the delicate nature of adolescent behavior and consider what setting will provide the most positive atmosphere for the discussion of sensitive issues. Although statutes and court rules dictate the conduct of review hearings, in most jurisdictions hearings may be either open (in the presence of all drug court participants, their families, and others involved with their cases) or closed (only in the presence of the drug court team), or they may be open but with some exceptions. For most cases, an open hearing is appropriate, but the unique circumstances of some cases may warrant an adjustment to the open court procedure. For example, to avoid conflicts between a parent and youth during an open court session, it may be necessary for the

case manager to report sensitive issues during a staff meeting.

One of the hallmarks of the juvenile drug court—in contrast to adult courts or other juvenile courts—is the personal relationship between each youth and the judge. Often, the judge is the only constant in the youth’s life, providing the structure and support that are otherwise absent. In loco parentis has a special meaning in this context: Judges need to demonstrate interest in each youth’s accomplishments and sensitivity to his or her unique issues.

S o u rc e :S o u rc e : Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) (2003).

Questions to Consider 1. True or False: In juvenile drug courts, there is usually a personal relationship between each

youngster and the judge. 2. Multiple Choice: In most jurisdictions hearings may be which of the following?

a. Open b. Closed c. Open, with some exceptions d. All of the above e. None of the above

3. In your opinion, what are some distinct differences between a juvenile drug court judge and most other roles of judges?

Tower (1993) concluded the following:

Since people’s motivations are never predictable, the juvenile court judge realizes there is no assurance that a child will be safe when returned home or happy in placement. Using only best judgment and the hope that it is correct, the judge renders the decision. (p. 293)

In a study of serious child maltreatment cases brought before the Boston Juvenile Court in 1994, Bishop, Murphy, and Hicks (2000) concluded that despite some improvements during the past decade, “the system still fails to promptly find permanent placements for seriously maltreated children” (p. 610). In attempting to arrive at an acceptable disposition, the juvenile court judge frequently relies heavily on the recommendations of the juvenile probation officer, as discussed in the What Would You Do? exercise at the beginning of this chapter. In some cases, alternative forms of processing and punishment may be given with juvenile offenders. For example, consider In Practice 9.3, which discusses the use of a teen court in Phoenix, Arizona. Though this type of processing may sound soft in approach, persons who go through teen court seem to indicate that their peers hold them accountable and provide serious consequences for delinquent

behavior.

In Practice 9.3: Teens Deal Out Justice Their Way in Maryvale Crystal Dorosky was the first teenager to appear in the Maryvale Teen Court when it opened its doors in west Phoenix last week.

At this court, defendant Dorosky’s attorney was younger than she is. The prosecutor was not old enough to vote. The four-member jury had not graduated from high school. And the court clerk plays guitar in a budding rock band called Third Right Turn.

The only adult was Maryvale Justice of the Peace, Maryvale Precinct, Judge Hercules Dellas, who oversaw the proceedings.

The jury ordered Dorosky, 17, to do 10 hours of community service as her punishment for possessing alcohol at a New Year’s Eve party in December. A traditional juvenile court judge might have issued a series of trips to a probation officer, a monetary fine, or community service and a potential record for the same offense.

Dorosky believes the sentence was steep. Her court-appointed attorney, Diane Villafana, a Maryvale High School student, had asked for eight hours of community service. Then again, Dorosky can’t imagine being judged by an adult in a traditional juvenile court.

“I think a teen jury knows how it is to be a kid in this day and age. We like to party, and we like to be with friends,” Dorosky said. “Maybe if the jury were adults, they would have given me a harsher consequence.”

Maryvale Teen Court is the most recent addition to the Maricopa County Teen Court Youth Diversion Program. The others are in Phoenix, Tempe, Fountain Hills, Glendale, and Gilbert. To make the court a reality in Maryvale, Judge Dellas asked Phoenix Union High School District’s Maryvale High for help, and a high school business law class served as prosecutors, legal counsel, and jurors.

Students take responsibility for their mistakes and understand the consequences. On the flip side, they gain experience “serving as a juror or as a courtroom participant,” Dellas said.

Maryvale Teen Court is expected to hear two to eight cases per session once a month during the school year.

Teen Court is designed after a traditional adult courtroom. It benefits students who are younger than 17 whose offenses range from alcohol possession, [to] theft valued at less than $250, [to] disorderly conduct.

With a probation officer’s approval and a parent’s permission, a teen’s case could end up in Teen Court. A child also accepts responsibility for the offenses before making an appearance at Teen Court, where a jury delivers the punishment with a deadline. Students must complete the orders within two months after the hearing. If a teen fails to comply, the case is returned to the juvenile probation officer for action. If a defendant successfully meets all of the requirements, his or her case is closed without a criminal record.

The success rate of Teen Court impressed Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who asked Dellas to add the program to his schedule. Dellas agreed.

Studies show that a high percentage of teens sentenced at Teen Court complete the jury’s orders, Wilcox said. At least 92 percent of juveniles who complete Teen Court are not referred to Juvenile Court within a year, she said.

Maryvale Teen Court, at 4622 W. Indian School Road, also is closer to home for teens than a trip to Juvenile Justice Courts at Durango.

“When peers judge peers, you get a whole different outcome,” Wilcox said. “The hardest critics are your peers. It also exposes them to the court’s legal system. They don’t want to be on one side of the table but be a lawyer and prosecutor.”

Tom Camp, who teaches business law at Maryvale High, watched his 13 students become prosecutors, jurors, legal counsel, court bailiff, and clerk.

“They were scared,” he said. “I guess what made them nervous were the people. When kids are held accountable, it makes them very nervous. That is kids in general. They do not like to be held responsible.”

Derek Penne, 16, said he was so nervous as a Teen Court clerk that he mispronounced the judge’s name. He introduced a Judge George to the audience and corrected himself.

The Maryvale teen isn’t aspiring to be a lawyer, at least for now. He is exerting his energy studying music and playing guitar for the Third Left Turn band. “It was nerve-racking because there were too many people watching,” Penne said.

S o u rc e :S o u rc e : “Teens deal out justice their way in Maryvale” by Betty Reid. Copyright 04/07/06 by The Arizona Republic. Used with permission. Permission does not imply endorsement.

Questions to Consider 1. True or False: The Maryvale Teen Court is part of a youth diversion program. 2. Multiple Choice: According to the information provided, at least ______ of juveniles who

complete teen court are not referred to juvenile court within a year. a. 32% b. 52% c. 72% d. 92% e. None of the above

3. What potential drawbacks, if any, might exist when using a teen court?

Juvenile Probation Officer Probation is the oldest and most widely used disposition, with more than 18,000 juvenile

probation officers in the United States (Torbet, 1996). Probation is a disposition by the juvenile court in which the minor is placed and maintained in the community under the supervision of a duly authorized officer of the court, the juvenile probation officer. “Probation may be used at the ‘front-end’ of the juvenile justice system for the first-time, low-risk offenders or at the ‘back-end’ as an alternative to institutional confinement for more serious offenders” (p. 1). Either way, it allows the minor to remain with the family or a foster family under conditions prescribed by the court to ensure acceptable behavior in a community setting.

The juvenile probation officer is a key figure at all levels of the juvenile justice system (Siegel et al., 2003). He or she may arrange a preliminary conference between interested parties that may result in an out-of-court settlement between an alleged delinquent and the injured party or between parties in cases of abuse or neglect. After an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile probation officer is often charged with conducting a social background investigation (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013; Siegel et al., 2003). This investigation will be used to help the judge make a dispositional decision. Probation officers are also charged with supervising those juveniles who are placed on probation and released into the community and with supervising parents deemed to have committed neglect or abuse (Ford et al., 2006; Goodkind, Ng, & Sarri, 2006; Siegel et al., 2003). Probation officers have the power to request a revocation of probation if violations of the conditions of probation occur.

Deputies Henry and Turpin of the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office work as truancy officers. They provide reports to the juvenile court and work in tandem with juvenile probation officers to ensure that youth attend school on a routine basis.

Courtesy of the authors

The duties of chief probation officers generally include assignment of cases and supervision of subordinates (Stuckey et al., 2004). Chief probation officers may or may not handle cases themselves, depending on available staff. In addition, they normally serve as a liaison between judges and other department heads. The better the rapport they are able to establish with the juvenile court judge, and the more effective they are in transmitting information to subordinates, other juvenile justice practitioners, and the judge, the better the opportunity to serve the interests of juveniles and the community.

The role of juvenile probation officers is an ambiguous one. Indeed, the What Would You Do? exercise at the beginning of this chapter demonstrates some of the challenging circumstances that juvenile probation officers face. They are officers of the court who occasionally must act as authority figures and disciplinarians. At the same time, they are

charged with helping juveniles in trouble by attempting to keep the juveniles out of court, by recommending the most beneficial dispositions, by protecting juveniles from abusive parents while counseling those parents, and by being available to help probationers solve problems encountered during their probationary periods. If they are to be effective in their role as helping professionals, they must encourage open interaction and trust among the juveniles and parents or guardians they encounter (Gardner, Rodriguez, & Zatz, 2004; Parker-Jimenez, 1997). If they seem too authoritarian, they may receive little cooperation. If they become too friendly, they may find it difficult to take disciplinary steps when necessary.

Juvenile probation officers may find that they are integral in coordinating a variety of services for juveniles. A range of skills, services, and resources are often brokered by juvenile probation officers to aid juveniles in reintegrating into the community and improving their ability to meet the conditions of their probation (Champion, 2002; Hanser, 2007a; Siegel et al., 2003). Juvenile probation officers may coordinate a number of services such as mental health counseling, drug and alcohol counseling, academic achievement, vocational and employment training, alternative education programs, Big Brothers Big Sisters programs, and foster parent or grandparent programs (Champion, 2002; Hanser, 2007a).

As a result of the ambiguous role requirements, several different types of juvenile probation officers exist. Some think of themselves largely as law enforcement officers whose basic function is to detect violations of probation. Others see themselves as juvenile advocates whose basic function is to ensure that the rights of juveniles are not violated by the police or potential petitioners. Still others view themselves basically as social workers whose function is to facilitate treatment and rehabilitation. Hanser (2010) noted that none of these approaches are ideal. Rather, each has its time and place, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, the most effective juvenile probation officers exercise all of these options at different times under differing circumstances. However, it should be pointed out that the balancing of these different orientations in supervision can lead to a sense of role identity confusion (Hanser, 2010). This is a primary source of burnout among community supervision officers, including those assigned to juvenile offenders (Hanser, 2010). Role identity confusion occurs when officers are unclear about the expectations placed on them when they attempt to balance the competing interests of their “policing” role and their “reform”-oriented role (Hanser, 2010).

Officer Mark Miller is a juvenile probation officer with the Office for Youth Development in Louisiana. Juvenile probation officers have a key role in the juvenile system throughout the state of Louisiana and in other states.

Courtesy of the authors

Perhaps the most difficult task for most juvenile probation officers is the supervision of probationers. Many have excessive caseloads and have little actual contact with their clients other than short weekly or monthly meetings (Hanser, 2010). High caseloads have been defined as 50 or more juvenile offenders, with caseloads actually going as high as 300 juveniles or more in some jurisdictions (Champion, 2002). Obviously, not a great deal of counseling or supervision can occur under these circumstances. When field contacts are made with probationers, probation officers are often considerably concerned about further stigmatizing their clients. Parents who have problems with their children sometimes try to use juvenile probation officers’ official position to frighten the children into compliance with their demands. As a result of these difficulties, most juvenile probation officers, in discussing probation conditions with their clients, make it clear that they are available to discuss whatever problems probationers believe are significant. Some juvenile probation officers using this technique allow clients to choose the time

and place for conferences to minimize stigmatization.

Juvenile probation officers must also work daily to overcome several issues, including job safety, rising caseloads, a lack of resources, and feelings of failure (Champion, 2002). In a study by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 1996, it was reported that more than one-third of juvenile probation officers had been assaulted on the job and that 42% stated they were usually or always concerned about their personal safety while working (Torbet, 1996). In response to these concerns, some jurisdictions have implemented intensive supervision and school-based programs into local schools. Along with safety concerns, rising caseloads have also become a problem for juvenile probation officers. Respondents to the 1996 OJJDP survey stated that their caseloads ranged between two and more than 200, with the typical caseload at roughly 41 probationers. It was also reported that probation caseloads are involving more violent juveniles than in previous years. However, the number of resources available to juvenile probation officers has not increased with the number of probationers. Juvenile probation officers are still limited in the types of placements available to probationers and in the amount of funding they can receive from the jurisdiction for treatment of juveniles on their caseloads. This often means that juvenile probation officers must be creative in their approach to their probationers’ treatments and rehabilitative efforts. In the same 1996 OJJDP survey, it was reported that “although [juvenile probation officers] chose this line of work ‘to help kids,’ their greatest sources of frustration are an inability to impact the lives of youth, the attitudes of probationers and their families, and difficulties in identifying successes” (p. 1).

Technological innovations such as electronic monitoring are of some help to probation officers in supervising their clients. These supervision tools often work to augment the supervision of juveniles who are processed through juvenile intensive supervision programs (JISPs), which typically accommodate violent and/or repeat youthful offenders (Champion, 2002; Hanser, 2007a). Recently, the Florida Department of Corrections began a pilot project using the global positioning system (GPS) to track the movements and locations of probationers, warn prior victims if necessary, and determine whether probationers are in “off-limits” locations (Mercer, Brooks, & Bryant, 2000).

Children and Family Services Personnel Although personnel from departments of children and family services (or CPS) do not actually work for the juvenile courts, they play major roles in investigation, presentation of evidence, and dispositional recommendations in abuse and neglect cases. Typically when law enforcement officers believe they have discovered a case of abuse or neglect, they are required to report the case to children and family services. Departments of

children and family services usually maintain a central register of abuse and neglect cases. On receiving a report of suspected or confirmed abuse or neglect, personnel from the child protective agency begin an investigation of the allegation (Sedlak et al., 2005). In emergency cases, such investigations are to be conducted immediately, in theory at least. In other cases, investigators are normally required to conduct an investigation within a specified time period, typically 24 to 72 hours. Such an investigation normally involves interviews with the alleged victim and offender and an evaluation of risk factors in the child’s environment. Where appropriate, the child may be removed from the home to safeguard his or her welfare.

If the allegations of abuse or neglect are found to be true, caseworkers from children and family services are involved in assisting the children involved in court proceedings and in formulating plans to provide services or treatment to both the children and the families involved (Sedlak et al., 2005). In cases where abuse or neglect occurs in institutional settings, the institutions involved, if allowed to remain open, are monitored by children and family services.

Other children services personnel may come from a conglomerate of agencies that pool together into what may be referred to as a coalition. Increasingly, federal and state funders are requiring organizations to develop collective bodies that address various social issues. This is true within the field of substance abuse, domestic violence, children’s services, sexual assault, mental health, and offender reentry. The idea is that communities can offer better overall services if their agencies (both state and nonprofit) and organizations work in tandem with one another. Thus, collaborative groups of agencies that include local, state, and nonprofit entities are becoming more common, and this even means that issues related to juvenile delinquency are addressed by these networks, both in and out of the courtroom. One example is the Children’s Coalition of Northeast Louisiana, which is involved with service delivery for children of abuse and teens who commit delinquency throughout their service region. This coalition works in tandem with the local district attorney’s office, judges who preside over juvenile cases, juvenile probation officers, and various persons from youth-oriented social services.

Ms. Denna McGrew, assistant director (on the left), and Ms. Lynda Gavioli, executive director (on the right), of the Children’s Coalition for Northeast Louisiana, routinely work with court personnel regarding youth welfare and delinquency issues.

Courtesy of the authors

Court-Appointed Special Advocates A Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) works closely with departments of children and family services on abuse and neglect cases (Center for Children and Families, 2012). CASA volunteers are trained citizen volunteers who are appointed by the court to give advice in the best interests of children who are victims of abuse or neglect. The volunteers are ordinary people, usually without legal expertise, who care about what happens to children who have been victimized by abusive or neglectful parents. The juvenile court rarely appoints CASAs in delinquency cases (this may happen only if the delinquent child has an extensive history of abuse or neglect that may be influencing his or her delinquent behavior).

In jurisdictions with CASA programs, CASA volunteers are assigned to one case at a time by the juvenile court judge. They are responsible for researching the background of the case, reviewing court documents, and interviewing everyone involved in the case, including the child. CASA volunteers also prepare a report for the court discussing what they believe is in the best interests of the child based on the evidence they have reviewed (Center for Children and Families, 2012). The judge may use this report when deciding on a disposition for the child. Once the judge has decided on the case, the

CASA volunteers continue monitoring the case to ensure that the child and/or family receive the services ordered by the court.

Training and Competence of Juvenile Court Personnel If the goals of the juvenile justice system are to be achieved, the system needs to be staffed by well-trained, competent practitioners. Unfortunately, a number of circumstances have prevented total success in this area. Prosecutors and defense attorneys who handle juvenile court cases generally have little to gain by large investments of time and money. Few defense attorneys have gained national renown as the result of their efforts in juvenile court. Few prosecutors can count on being reelected on the basis of successful prosecutions in juvenile court. In addition, in many locales the juvenile court is regarded as something less than a real court of law where technical proficiency in law is necessary. Prosecutors often assign inexperienced assistants to handle juvenile court cases, and few defense attorneys specialize in the practice of juvenile law. As a result, many cases presented in juvenile court are poorly prepared by both sides. Some prosecutors are not thoroughly familiar with the juvenile code governing their jurisdiction. Similarly, defense attorneys will at times accept hearsay evidence, fail to present witnesses for the defense, and fail to object to procedural violations that might result in the dismissal of the petitions concerning their clients. In short, although the frequency of legal representation for both the state and defense has increased considerably during the past decade, the quality of such representation often leaves something to be desired.

Many judges handle juvenile cases as a part-time assignment. Although many clearly have the best interests of juveniles at heart, far too many show the same unfamiliarity with juvenile codes that characterizes many attorneys appearing before them. In fact, as we have observed, some appear to disregard juvenile codes altogether and rule their jurisdictions as dictators whose decisions on the bench are law.

A particularly disturbing example of judicial lack of familiarity with juvenile law was a case in which a part-time juvenile court judge sentenced a 14-year-old truant (MRAI) to the department of corrections. This clearly violates the juvenile code prohibiting status offenders from being transferred to that department. Intervention by the prosecutor and probation officer prevented this illegal act, which otherwise might have gone unchallenged until the department of corrections refused to accept the juvenile.

It should not be too much to ask that attorneys and judges practicing in juvenile court read and become familiar with applicable juvenile codes. If they do not, none of the constitutional guarantees or court decisions regarding due process in juvenile cases will

have any impact. Treating juvenile court cases as if they did not involve the real practice of law has made practice before the juvenile court unattractive to many lawyers and judges and will continue to do so in the future. Fortunately, there is some evidence that a corps of better-informed sincere lawyers and judges is beginning to emerge. To encourage the growth of such a corps, proper recognition and rewards must be forthcoming.

Many jurisdictions require a bachelor’s degree for employment in probation and social service positions, and a number of practitioners in these positions have master’s degrees. The typical juvenile probation officer, for example, is a college-educated white male earning between $20,000 and $39,000 annually with a caseload of 41 juveniles (Torbet, 1996, p. 1). The OJJDP (1996) reported that more than three-quarters of all probation officers responding to their survey earned less than $40,000 a year, and 30% of these did not receive yearly pay increases. In some states, probation officers’ salaries, typically paid by the county, are subsidized by state funds in an attempt to alleviate this problem (Torbet, 1996, p. 2).

In Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, published by the IJA and the ABA (1980b), various sections address the issue of training for juvenile court personnel. For example, one recommendation states the following:

Family court judges should be provided with preservice training on the law and procedures governing subject matter by the family (juvenile) court, the causes of delinquency and family conflict, [and] a thorough understanding of agencies responsible for intake and protective services. In addition, inservice education programs should be provided to judges to assure they are aware of changes in law, policy, and programs. (sec. 1.4220)

Other recommendations (secs. 1.423, 1.424, and 1.425) address similar issues of preservice and in-service training in juvenile matters with prosecutors, public defenders, and other court personnel and their staffs. Today there is a good deal of in- service training available to juvenile justice court personnel. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, for example, sponsors training programs for court personnel on a continuing basis and publishes the Juvenile and Family Court Journal to keep practitioners informed of the latest happenings in juvenile justice.

Career Opportunity: Youth Services Coordinator

Job description: Responsible for coordinating the treatment and rehabilitation services of

juvenile offenders. Provide for the assessment, classification, procurement, coordination, and evaluation of services for juvenile offenders incarcerated in state correctional and residential facilities. Required to work with families, governmental agencies, local courts, schools, and service agencies to create and provide comprehensive treatment programs for troubled youth. May provide counseling to youth.

Employment requirements: Usually required to have 1 year of professional experience in the juvenile justice field. Required to have knowledge, experience, and an understanding of group and individual counseling, interactional strategies, and child development and behavior. College education needed in the areas of criminal justice, psychology, sociology, social work, education, and other closely related fields. Must complete an oral interview process before being hired.

Beginning salary: Benefits are provided by the state and include health and life insurance, paid vacations and holidays, and retirement plans. Salaries vary depending on the geographical location of the position but can range from $26,000 to $38,000.

Summary Key figures in juvenile court proceedings include attorneys for the state and for the defendant, the judge, representatives from the department of children and family services, and the probation officer. Although the frequency of legal representation in juvenile court is increasing, the quality of this representation needs to be improved. The practice of juvenile law must be taken more seriously if we do not want to deal with juveniles who repeat their offenses and eventually come before adult courts.

Competent lawyers and judges need to be rewarded for their performances in juvenile court proceedings. Whenever possible, juvenile court judges should be assigned exclusively to juvenile court for a time. Judges who combine the best elements of the parent figure and lawgiver roles are a definite asset to the juvenile justice system. Probation officers and department of children and family services personnel are crucial if a juvenile justice philosophy is to be implemented. Their services to the court and to juveniles with problems complement the roles of the other juvenile court personnel. Although the overall quality of juvenile court personnel is improving, there is still considerable variance. Continued emphasis on training and competence at all levels is essential.

Key Terms children and family services 233 court-appointed counsel 237 Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) 250

defense counsel 237 electronic monitoring 249 juvenile court judges 237 juvenile probation officer 246 “lawgiver” judge 243 “parent figure” judge 243 preservice and in-service training 251 private counsel 237 prosecutor or state’s attorney 234 role identity confusion 248 unofficial probation 234

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Discuss the roles of the prosecutor and defense counsel in juvenile court. Why is

the presence of legal representatives for both sides crucial in contemporary juvenile court? Discuss the relationship between the prosecutor and defense counsel.

2. Why is the judge such a powerful figure in juvenile court? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the judge as lawgiver and parent figure? How well trained are juvenile court judges?

3. In what sense is the role of juvenile probation officer ambiguous? What are the consequences of this ambiguity? How important is the probation officer in juvenile court proceedings?

4. What role do representatives from the department of children and family services play in juvenile court proceedings? Why are CASAs important in juvenile court proceedings?

Suggested Readings Backstrom, J. C., & Walker, G. L. (2006). The role of the prosecutor in juvenile justice: Advocacy in the courtroom and leadership in the community. William Mitchell Law Review, 32(3), 964–988.

Berlow, A. (2000, June 5). Requiem for a public defender. American Prospect, 11, 28– 32.

Bishop, S. J., Murphy, M. J., & Hicks, R. (2000). What progress has been made in

meeting the needs of seriously maltreated children? The course of 200 cases through the Boston Juvenile Court. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 599–610.

Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juveniles: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.

Fox, R. W., Kanitz, H. M., & Folger, W. A. (1991). Basic counseling skills training program for juvenile court workers. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 11(2), 34–41.

Gahr, E. (2001, June). Judging juveniles. American Enterprise, 12(4), 26–28.

National Juvenile Defender Center. (2016). Defend children: A blueprint for effective juvenile defender services. Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center.

Payne, J. W. (1999, January). Our children’s destiny. Trial, 35, 83–85.

Reddington, F. P., & Kreisel, B. W. (2000). Training juvenile probation officers: National trends and patterns. Federal Probation, 64(2), 28–32.

Rubin, H. T. (1980). The emerging prosecutor dominance of the juvenile court intake process. Crime & Delinquency, 6, 229–318.

Rush, J. P. (1992). Juvenile probation officer cynicism. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16(2), 1–16.

Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2003). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Too poor to be defended [Editorial]. (1998, April 9). The Economist, 21–22.

Torbet, P. M. (1996). Juvenile probation: The workhorse of the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 253–277.

Sharpen your skills with SAGE edge at edge.sagepub.com/coxjj9e. SAGE edge for students provides a personalized approach to help you accomplish your coursework goals in an easy-to- use learning environment. You’ll find action plans, mobile-friendly eFlashcards, and quizzes as well as video and web resources and links to SAGE journal articles to support and expand on the concepts presented in this chapter.