dic 4

7 Juvenile Justice Procedures

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

Understand and discuss juvenile court procedures Discuss the rights of juveniles at various stages, from taking into custody through appeals Understand requirements for bail, notification, and filing of petitions Discuss procedures involved in detaining juveniles

What Would You Do?

It is Friday night and you are in bed. Your 13-year-old daughter is spending the night with a friend. The two girls told you they were going to a movie and back to her friend’s home. Her friend’s older sister, who is 18, is going to drive them to and from the movie. At approximately 2:15 a.m. you get a phone call. The caller identifies herself as Lisa Strom, an employee of the Forten County Detention Center. She says that your daughter has been taken into custody for curfew violation, possession of alcohol by a minor, peace disturbance, and assaulting a police officer. Ms. Strom informs you that your daughter will be held in detention pending a review of her case by a juvenile intake officer. This review will take place within the next 24 hours and you will receive another phone call once the juvenile intake officer decides to hold or release the child. She states that you are allowed to visit your daughter once within the next 24 hours and informs you that visitation is allowed between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. that day. The only question you can think to ask is if your daughter is okay. Ms. Strom says your daughter is going through the intake process and is in good health. You hang up the phone wide awake and wondering what to do next.

What Would You Do? 1. Would your daughter be classified as a status offender or a delinquent, according to the charges? 2. What would be your next course of action? Would you contact a lawyer, wait for the phone call from the juvenile intake officer, visit your daughter during

visiting hours, or do something else? 3. If you were the juvenile intake officer, would you continue to detain this child or release her to her parents pending court?

Juvenile court acts discuss not only the purposes and scope of the juvenile justice system but also the procedure the juvenile courts are to follow. Proceedings concerning juveniles officially begin with the filing of a petition alleging that a juvenile is delinquent, dependent, neglected, abused, in need of supervision, or in need of authoritative intervention. Most juvenile court acts, however, also discuss the unofficial or diversionary activities available as remedies prior to the filing of a petition such as a stationhouse adjustment and a preliminary conference. A stationhouse adjustment occurs when a police officer negotiates a settlement with a juvenile, often with his or her parents, without taking further official action (a full discussion of stationhouse adjustments follows in Chapter 8). A preliminary conference is a voluntary meeting arranged by a juvenile probation officer with the victim, the juvenile, and typically the juvenile’s parents or guardian in an attempt to negotiate a settlement without taking further official action. Juvenile court acts clearly indicate those persons who are eligible to file a petition. For example, in Illinois any adult person (21 years of age or over), agency, or association by its representative may file a petition, or the court on its own motion may direct the filing through the state’s attorney of a petition in respect to a minor under the act (Illinois Compiled Statutes [ILCS], ch. 705, art. 1, sec. 405/1-3, 2012). Tennessee’s statute says, “The petition may be made by any person, including a law enforcement officer, who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed and believes that they are true” (Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37- 1-119, 2012).

Although it is true that a petition may be filed by any eligible person by going directly to the prosecutor (state’s attorney or district attorney), a large proportion of petitions are filed following police action or by social service agencies dealing with minors by either juvenile court personnel or prosecuting attorneys. To understand the step-by-step procedures involved in processing juveniles, we discuss the typical sequence of events occurring after the police take a juvenile into custody. We rely heavily on the procedures given in the Uniform Juvenile Court Act and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which closely resemble similar acts in many states. Although a general discussion of juvenile justice procedures is given, some states differ with respect to specific requirements. You should consult the juvenile court act or code relevant to your state for exact procedural requirements.

Are stationhouse adjustments more common for juveniles of some ages, races, and gender than others?

©Kevin Beebe/Photo Library/Getty Images

Rights of Juveniles Regardless of the particular jurisdiction, juveniles in the United States have been (since the 1967 Gault decision) guaranteed a number of basic rights at the adjudicatory stage. Thus, a juvenile who is alleged to be delinquent has the following rights (In re Gault, 1967):

1. The right to notice of the charges and time to prepare for the case 2. The right to counsel 3. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses 4. The right to remain silent in court

As a direct result of the Gault decision, the constitutional guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment and not only apply to delinquency matters but also have been extended to some cases involving the need for supervision or intervention. The question remaining after the Gault decision concerned the extent to which its mandate logically extended to other stages of the juvenile justice process, particularly the police investigatory process. Both the Gault and Kent decisions (Kent v. United States, 1966) have been interpreted to require the application of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule to the juvenile justice process. The most difficult issue has revolved around the juvenile’s competency to waive his or her rights under Miranda. In general, the courts have relied on a totality of circumstances approach in determining the validity of the waiver. Circumstances considered include the age, competency, and educational level of the juvenile; his or her ability to understand the nature of the charges; and the methods used in, and length of, the interrogation (Davis, 2001, sec. 3.13, pp. 3-86–3-90).

The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968, sec. 26) provides that all parties to juvenile court proceedings are entitled to representation by counsel. Many jurisdictions currently provide for representation by counsel in neglect, abuse, and dependency proceedings, extending the Gault decision to such cases (Montana Code Annotated, 41-3-425, 2015; 32A-1-1; NMSA, 1978). In a neglect and/or abuse case, legal counsel for the minor may be the state’s attorney, who represents the state that has a duty to protect the child. The court may also appoint a guardian ad litem for a juvenile if the juvenile has no parent or guardian appearing on his or her behalf or if the parent’s or guardian’s interests conflict with those of the juvenile—as is often the case in abuse and neglect cases. Some states allow for both the prosecuting attorney and the guardian ad litem, with the guardian ad litem presenting a separate case based on evidence he or she believes to demonstrate the best interest of the child (Missouri Revised Statutes, 211.462, 2015).

The protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure extends to juveniles. All courts that have specifically considered the issue of the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the juvenile justice process have found it to be applicable, or more correctly, no court has found it to be inapplicable (Davis, 2001, 3–17; Montana Code Annotated, 41-5-1415, 2015). The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968, sec. 27[b]) states that evidence seized illegally will not be admitted over objection. Similarly, a valid confession made by a juvenile out of court is, in the words of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, “insufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency unless it is corroborated in whole or in part by other evidence.” This extends some protection to juveniles not normally accorded to adults. In addition, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 27[a]) recommends that a party be entitled to introduce evidence and otherwise be heard in his or her own behalf and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Furthermore, a juvenile accused of a delinquent act need not be a witness against, or otherwise incriminate, himself or herself. A majority of juvenile court acts do not spell out a detailed code of evidence. However, most do specify whether the rules permit only competent, material, and relevant evidence and whether the rules of evidence that apply in criminal or civil cases are applicable in juvenile cases. A number of states provide that the rules of evidence applicable in criminal cases apply in delinquency proceedings and that the rules of evidence applicable in civil cases apply in other proceedings (i.e., neglect, dependency, and in-need-of-supervision cases). In Georgia, for example, the standard of proof in dependency cases is clear and convincing evidence, whereas in delinquency cases the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt (Georgia Criminal and Traffic Law Manual, 2014, 15-11-180 and 15-11-581).

The Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended many years ago that, unless a child is advised by counsel, the statements of the child made while in the custody of the police or probation officers, including statements made during a preliminary inquiry, predisposition study, or consent decree, should not be used against the child prior to the determination of the petition’s allegations in a delinquency or in need of supervision/intervention case or in a criminal proceeding prior to conviction (Children’s Bureau, 1969, sec. 26). In abuse and neglect cases, however, the courts have eased restrictions on the admission of statements made in the totality of circumstances, witness testimony, and so on (see Chapter 5).

It should be noted that some rights guaranteed to adults are not guaranteed to juveniles in most jurisdictions. As a result of the McKeiver decision (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971), juveniles are not generally guaranteed the right to a trial by jury or a public trial. The U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding McKeiver, indicated that a jury was not necessary for fact-finding purposes and left the issue of trial by jury up to the individual states. Although the majority of jurisdictions provide for hearings without juries, some provide for jury trials by statute (which specify certain criminal acts that are eligible for jury trials and when a youth may request a jury trial) or judicial decision (Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-107, 2002; Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, ch. 119, sec. 55A, 2016; Montana Code Annotated, 41-5-1502 [1], 2015; Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.03 [c], 2007; West Virginia Code Annotated, 49-5-6, 2012). In addition, the McKeiver decision left open the question of whether juvenile court proceedings are necessarily adversarial in nature and left on the states the burden of establishing that a

separate justice system for juveniles represents a useful alternative to criminal processing.

Bail The issue of bail (release from custody pending trial after payment of a court-ordered sum) for juveniles is controversial. Some jurisdictions permit bail, whereas others do not on the grounds that the juvenile has not been charged with a crime and, therefore, is not entitled to bail. Because of special release provisions for juveniles (to the custody of parents or a guardian), bail has not been a question of paramount concern in terms of litigation. A number of states forbid the use of bail with respect to juveniles (Hawaii Revised Statutes, 571-32 [h], 2015; Missouri Revised Statutes, 211.061, 2015), several states authorize release on bail at the discretion of a judge (Connecticut General Statutes Annotated, sec. 46b-133b, 2012; Nebraska Revised Statutes, 43-253 [5], 2012), and some states allow the same right to bail enjoyed by adults (Colorado Revised Statutes 19-2-509, 2012; Georgia Code, 15-11-47 (d), 2010).

Finally, most jurisdictions require that official records kept on juveniles be maintained in separate and confidential files. These may be opened only by court order or following stringent guidelines established by state statutes (Missouri Revised Statutes, 211.321, 2015). As an example, Arkansas states very specifically which juvenile records are open for review, for example:

(1) Adoption records, including any part of a dependency-neglect record that includes adoption records, shall be closed and confidential as provided in the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, 9-9-201 et seq.; (2) Records of delinquency adjudications for which a juvenile could have been tried as an adult shall be made available to prosecuting attorneys for use at sentencing if the juvenile is subsequently tried as an adult or to determine if the juvenile should be tried as an adult; and (3) Records of delinquency adjudications for a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for any felony or a Class A misdemeanor wherein violence or a weapon was involved shall be made available to the Arkansas Crime Information Center; and (b) (1) (A) Records of delinquency adjudications for which a juvenile could have been tried as an adult shall be kept for ten (10) years after the last adjudication of delinquency or the date of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or a finding of guilt as an adult. (Arkansas Code 9-27-309, 2010)

Taking Into Custody The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968) states the following:

A child may be taken into custody pursuant to an order of the court under that Act, or pursuant to the laws of arrest; or by a law enforcement officer if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is suffering from illness or injury or is in immediate danger from his surroundings and that his removal is necessary; or by a law enforcement officer if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child has run away from his parents or guardian. (sec. 13)

The broad jurisdictional scope of the juvenile courts generally provides that any juvenile can be taken into custody (detained) without a warrant if the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the juvenile to be delinquent, in need of supervision, dependent, abused, or neglected as defined within that state’s juvenile court act. However, some states have recognized that removing a juvenile from home before there has been any trial is a power to be used on a limited basis. For truancy, disobedience, and even neglect, the legal process should begin with a summons unless there is “imminent danger” involved and unless waiting for the court’s permission would result in unnecessary and dangerous delay. In Illinois, a law enforcement officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor whom the officer, with reasonable cause, believes to be delinquent and requiring authoritative intervention, dependent, abused, or neglected as defined within that state’s juvenile court act (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/2-5, 3-4, 4-4, 5-401, 2011). In addition, the officer may take into custody any juvenile who has been adjudged a ward of the court and has escaped from any commitment ordered by the court. Alabama, for example, states a child can be taken into custody “by a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the child has run away from a detention, residential, shelter or other care facility” (Alabama Code § 12-15-56, 2015). The officer may also take into custody any juvenile who is found on any street or in any public place suffering from any sickness or injury requiring care, medical treatment, or hospitalization. The Alabama juvenile code also states the following:

A series of court decisions and some constitutional amendments help to protect the rights of juveniles taken into custody.

©John Downing/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

By a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the child is suffering from illness or injury or is in immediate danger from the child’s surroundings and that the child’s immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary for the protection of the health and safety of such child. (Alabama Code § 12-15-56, 2015)

The taking into temporary custody under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act does not constitute an official arrest. Although statutes in various states provide that taking into custody is not deemed an arrest, this is somewhat a legal fiction given that the juvenile is often held in involuntary custody. In light of recent court decisions, when delinquency is the alleged reason for taking into custody, law enforcement officers must adhere to appropriate constitutional guidelines. For categories other than delinquency, the parens patriae concern for protecting minors from dangerous surroundings will suffice constitutionally as reasonable grounds for taking minors into custody when it is not abused by law enforcement officers.

Interrogation While in custody, the juvenile has rights similar to those of an adult with respect to interrogation. To determine whether a confession or statement was given freely and voluntarily, the totality of circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement is to be considered. Even prior to Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court in Haley v. Ohio (1948) and Gallegos v. Colorado (1969) used the voluntariness test to determine the admissibility of statements made by juveniles to the police. If the police desire to question a juvenile concerning a delinquent act, the juvenile should be given the Miranda warning and should be clearly told that a decision to remain silent will not be taken as an indication of guilt. This can be problematic, as seen in In Practice 7.1, when police or others are not aware of the policies, procedures, and requirements with regard to juveniles. Many police administrators, prosecutors, and juvenile court judges believe that it is best not to question the juvenile unless his or her parents or a counselor are present. In Colorado, for example, “no statement or admission of a child made as a result of interrogation by law enforcement officials . . . shall be admissible . . . unless a parent, guardian, or custodian was present . . . and the child was advised of his right to counsel and to remain silent” (Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated, 19-2-511 [1], 2009). Any confession obtained without these safeguards might be considered invalid on grounds that the juvenile did not understand his or her rights or was frightened. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 27[b]) contains similar provisions.

In Practice 7.1: Defense: Police Never Read Rights to Teen Suspect in Mercer Co. Murder MERCER COUNTY, Ky. (WKYT) - 16-year-old Trenton Easterling went before a judge inside the Mercer County Courthouse Monday morning.

Monday’s hearing in the case involved a request to suppress evidence. Easterling’s defense attorneys called into question if the Miranda rights were read to Easterling before he spoke with detectives.

Sgt. Swavey of the Mercer County’s Sheriff’s Office was one of three officers to take the stand on Monday. He testified that on April 14th officers visited the school to speak with students and staff about the death investigation of Tristan Cole. Easterling was one of those students with which the police wanted to speak.

His mother, Melissa Easterling, said in court that police called her to the school. She went on to say she was then asked by officers to come down with Trenton to the Police Department for questioning. Trenton was taken to the police department in a squad car but was not arrested.

Officers say, Trenton, along with his mother and grandfather, went into a room once arriving at the police department. Officers also say that Trenton’s mother was asked to step out of the room so they could explain the Miranda rights to her. They said she could be present with Trenton while in the room and stop the interview at any time.

Trenton’s mother agreed to proceed, but after 30 minutes of questioning, stopped the interview. Police recorded that interview, but the defense says since Miranda rights were never read to Trenton specifically, it should not be used in court.

According to police, officers never read Miranda rights to Trenton, and no one ever signed a waiver.

We spoke with the father of Tristan who says he was not happy with what he heard in court:

“I don’t know what to say. I’m not too happy what went by in court today. I mean somebody did not do their job, and maybe it will come out good, or maybe it will come out bad. I mean that was a mistake that was made that shouldn’t of been made. That’s all I’m going to say,” Cole’s father, Gary Devine told WKYT.

A judge set a competency hearing for Easterling for December 13th.

Source:Source: Defense: Police never read rights to teen suspect in Mercer Co. murder (2016).

Juveniles taken into custody may be either detained or released to the custody of their parents or guardian. Most model juvenile court acts and the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 15) dictate that the police make an “immediate” and “reasonable” attempt to notify the juvenile’s parents or guardian of his or her custody. The maximum length of time considered to be immediate is usually established by statute. The definition of reasonable usually includes attempts to phone and/or visit the residence of the juvenile’s parents, place of employment, and any other known “haunts.” In Oregon, as an example, the statute states the following:

The person taking the youth into custody shall notify the youth’s parent, guardian or other person responsible for the youth. The notice shall inform the parent, guardian or other person of the action taken and the time and place of the hearing. (Oregon Juvenile Code 419C.097, 2015)

Detention Hearing In the What Would You Do? scenario at the beginning of the chapter, an intake officer would likely decide to hold or release the child and another phone call would be placed to the child’s parent informing her of the decision. If a juvenile is not released to his or her parents soon after being taken into custody, most states require that a detention hearing (a court hearing to determine whether detention is required) be held within a specified period. Sufficient notification must, of course, be given to all parties concerned before the proceeding. Section 17 of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act indicates that if a juvenile is brought before the court or delivered to a detention or shelter care facility, the intake or other authorized officer of the court will immediately begin an investigation and release the juvenile unless it appears that further detention or shelter care is warranted or required. If the juvenile is not released within 72 hours after being placed in detention, an informal detention hearing is held to determine whether further detention is warranted or required. Reasonable notice of the hearing must be given to the juvenile and to the parents or guardian. In addition, notification of the right to counsel and of the juvenile’s right to remain silent regarding any allegations of delinquency or unruly conduct must also be given by the court to the respondents. States vary with respect to the criteria used to determine the need for further detention, but they usually focus on the need to ensure the protection of society and the juvenile and on the possibility of the juvenile fleeing the jurisdiction. For example, in Illinois, after a minor has been delivered to the place designated by the court, the following must occur:

The intake personnel shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the minor and the facts surrounding his being taken into custody. The minor shall be immediately released to the custody of his parents unless the intake officer finds that further detention is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor, or of the person or property of another, or that he is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court. (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 5-501 [2], 2011)

Detention can be authorized by the intake officer (generally a designated juvenile police officer or the juvenile probation officer) for up to 36 hours, at which time the minor is either released to his or her parents or brought before the court for a detention hearing. Failure to file a petition or to bring the juvenile before the court within 40 hours will result in a release from detention (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-415, 2011). Some states use 24-hour, 48-hour, and 72-hour standards for release, filing of the petition, and the detention hearing. Weekends and holidays do not typically count in the statutory requirements. In West Virginia, the juvenile code states,

The referee, judge or magistrate shall hear testimony concerning the circumstances for taking the juvenile into custody and the possible need for detention in accordance with section two, article five-a of this chapter. The sole mandatory issue at the detention hearing is whether the juvenile should be detained pending further court proceedings. The court shall, if the health, safety and welfare of the juvenile will not be endangered thereby, release the juvenile on recognizance to his or her parents, custodians or an appropriate agency; however, if warranted, the court may require bail, except that bail may be denied in any case where bail could be denied if the accused were an adult. (West Virginia Code, ch. 49, art. 5, §49-5-8a, 2009)

For a sample temporary custody order, see Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Temporary Custody Hearing Order

A substantial number of juvenile cases are “unofficially adjusted” by law enforcement personnel at the initial encounters as well as at the stationhouse. Among those juveniles who are turned over to the court’s intake personnel, a substantial number are disposed of at the intake stage and at the detention hearings. In many instances, the intake personnel, the minor and his or her family, and the injured party are able to informally adjust the differences or problems that caused the minor to be taken into custody. This is often encouraged in state juvenile codes. This occurs in Tennessee, for example:

Before or after a petition is filed, the probation officer or other officer of the court designated by it, subject to its direction, may give counsel and advice to the parties with a view to an informal adjustment if it appears: (1) The admitted facts bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court; (2) Counsel and advice without an adjudication would be in the best interest of the public and the child; and (3) The child and the child’s parents, guardian or other custodian consent thereto with knowledge that consent is not obligatory. (Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37-1-110, 2012)

Only the most serious cases of delinquency, cases of unruly behavior, and cases involving serious abuse or neglect result in processing through the entire juvenile justice system. There are both legal and ethical questions about unofficial dispositions at the intake stage and the assumption of guilt that often leads to some prescribed treatment program. Although most practitioners make it clear that participation in informal dispositions is voluntary and that following advice or referrals is not mandatory, there may still be some official pressure perceived by the juvenile or the juvenile’s parents that violates the presumption of innocence.

Detention or Shelter Care The following takes place in accordance with the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968):

A child taken into custody shall not be detained or placed in shelter care prior to the hearing on the petition unless such detention is required to protect the person or property of others or of the child or because the child may abscond [flee] or be removed from the jurisdiction of the court or because he has no parent or guardian who is able to provide supervision and to return him to the court when required or an order for detention or shelter care has been made by the court pursuant to this Act. (sec. 14)

The absence of any of these conditions must result in the child’s release to his or her parents or guardian with their promise to bring the child before the court as requested (sec. 15[1]). Failure to bring the child before the court will result in the issuance of a warrant directing that the child be taken into custody and brought before the court (sec. 15[b]).

The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968) requires that the “person taking a child into custody, with all reasonable speed and without first taking the child elsewhere, shall release the child to his parents or guardian . . . unless detention or shelter care is warranted or required” (sec. 15[a][1]). This section of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act is designed to reduce the number of children in detention by specifying criteria that would “require and warrant” further detention.

If reasonable cause for detention cannot be established, the juvenile should be released to his or her parents. In practice, and according to most juvenile court acts, the juvenile is taken to a police or juvenile facility, at which time the parents or guardian are contacted. However, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act implies that the juvenile should be taken immediately to his or her parents or guardian unless detention appears to be warranted. This policy spares the juvenile the experience of being held in the most depressing and intimidating of all custodial facilities— the jail or police lockup.

In some states, if the juvenile is not released to his or her parents or guardian, the juvenile must be taken without unnecessary delay to the court or to a place designated by the court to receive juveniles (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-405, 2011; Missouri Revised Statutes, 211.151, 2015). The Uniform Juvenile Court Act does allow detention in a local jail if, and only if, a detention home or center for delinquent children is unavailable (sec. 16[a][4]). If the juvenile is confined in a jail, detention must be in a room separate and removed from the rooms for adults. This required separation from confined adults is commonly found in statutes and extends to cell, room, and yard and sometimes even to any sight or sound. Hawaii allows for the following standard with regard to separation of sight and sound in its juvenile court act:

The department of human services through the office of youth services shall certify police station cellblocks and community correctional centers that provide sight and sound separation between children and adults in secure custody. Only cellblocks and centers certified under this subsection shall be authorized to detain juveniles pursuant to section 571-32(d). The office of youth services may develop sight and sound separation standards, issue certifications, monitor and inspect facilities for compliance, cite facilities for violations, withdraw certifications, and require certified facilities to submit such data and information as requested. In addition, the office of youth services may monitor and inspect all cellblocks and centers for compliance with section 571-32(d). (Hawaii Revised Statutes, 571-32 [k], 2015)

In all categories other than delinquency, the child is normally taken to a designated shelter care facility, meaning a “physically unrestricted

facility,” according to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 2[6]). The procedures for contacting the parents or guardian and the criteria used to maintain custody in such a facility are the same as for the delinquent child. Shelter care facilities are generally licensed by the state and designated by the juvenile court to receive children who do not require the physically restrictive surroundings of a jail or juvenile detention center (typically, this includes those children believed to be abused or neglected or status offenders).

Maximum time limits for detention are set forth in the various juvenile court acts so that a juvenile will not be detained for lengthy periods without a review by the courts. In some cases, the issue of bail may arise (see discussion earlier in this chapter).

Once the juvenile has been taken into custody and either released to his or her parents or guardian or, with just cause, placed in a detention facility, an officer of the court may attempt to settle the case without a court hearing by arranging for a preliminary conference.

Preliminary Conference The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 10) includes a provision that allows a probation officer or other officer designated by the court to hold a preliminary conference so as to give counsel or advice with a view toward an informal adjustment without filing a petition (mentioned earlier in the chapter). This preliminary conference is in order only if the admitted facts bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court and if such an informal adjustment, without an adjudication, is in the best interests of the public and the child. The conference is to be held only with the consent of the juvenile’s parents or guardian. However, such a conference is not obligatory (sec. 10[a]). As mentioned earlier, a similar provision is found in the Tennessee juvenile code as well as the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which states the following:

The court may authorize the probation officer to confer in a preliminary conference with any person seeking to file a petition . . . concerning the advisability of filing the petition, with a view to adjusting suitable cases without the filing of a petition. (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-305, 2011)

If agreement between the parties can be reached at the preliminary conference, no further official action may be necessary. If judicial action seems necessary, the probation officer may recommend the filing of a petition. However, if the injured party demands that a petition be filed, that demand must be satisfied. Although the preliminary conference or informal adjustment may be of value in diverting cases that could be better settled outside of juvenile court, it has been subject to criticism as a method of engaging in legal coercion without trial (Tappan, 1949, pp. 310–311). In general, information or evidence presented at the preliminary conference is not admissible at any later stage in the juvenile court proceedings.

Petition As indicated earlier, juvenile court proceedings begin with the filing of a petition naming the juvenile in question and alleging that this juvenile is delinquent, dependent, abused, neglected, or a minor in need of intervention/supervision. A copy of a sample petition is shown in Figure 7.2. Although states vary regarding who is eligible to file a petition, similarities do exist concerning the content of petitions and the initiation of follow-through activities as a result of the petition. In some states, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted by juvenile court personnel to determine whether the best interests of the child or the public will require that a petition be filed. In other states, this inquiry is accomplished after the petition has been filed and may result in the petition being dismissed by the court if the alleged facts are not supported. Regardless of whether the inquiry is conducted before or after the filing of a petition, a common stipulation is one in which a court authorizes a person to endorse the petition as being in the best interests of the public and the child. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968) specifies that “a petition may be made by any person who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed and believes that they are true” (sec. 20). The act also states that “the petition shall not be filed unless the court or designated person has determined and endorsed upon the petition that the filing is in the best interest of the child and the public” (sec. 19). It should be noted that the signing of a petition and the authority to file the petition may be separate and distinct acts. This has led to some confusion. Some states require designated court personnel to sign the petition to establish some sufficiency of the allegations at the outset.

Figure 7.2 Petition for Adjudication of Wardship

The contents of the petition are governed by statutory requirements in each juvenile court act. The petition may be filed on “information and belief” rather than on verified facts necessary for an adjudicatory hearing. The petition is generally prefaced with the words “in the interests of.” The petition continues by giving the name and age of the child and frequently giving the names and addresses of the parents. It typically indicates whether the minor is currently in detention. Also included in the petition is the statement of facts that bring the child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This particular requirement has been a troublesome area because questions are often raised about whether sufficient facts have been stated and about the specificity of the charges. According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 21[1]), the petition must also contain allegations that relate to the child’s need of treatment or rehabilitation if delinquency or unruly conduct is alleged. Once the petition has been filled out, it is filed with the prosecutor, who then decides whether to prosecute. If the prosecutor decides to go ahead with the case, proper notice must be given to all concerned parties.

Notification In establishing a notification requirement (all interested parties are given official notice of time, places, and changes), the U.S. Supreme Court in Gault set forth two conditions that must be met: (1) timeliness and (2) adequacy. Although petitions might not need to meet all the legal requirements of an indictment, they do need to describe the alleged misconduct with some particularity so that all parties involved are clear as to the nature of the charges involved. Delinquency petitions, for example, must contain sufficient factual details to inform the juvenile of the nature of the offense leading to allegation of delinquency and must be sufficient to enable the accused to prepare a defense to the charges.

Once a petition has been filed, the court will issue a summons to all concerned adult parties informing them of the time, date, and place of the adjudicatory hearing and of the right of all parties to counsel. In addition, many states direct a separate summons to the child who is over a certain age and is within a designated category such as delinquent or unruly child. A copy of the petition will accompany the summons unless the summons is served “by publication” (printed in a newspaper of reasonable circulation). States vary regarding the length of time required between the serving of the summons and the actual proceedings. However, in accordance with the Gault decision, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed to provide the parties with sufficient time to prepare. Unnecessary and long delays should be avoided, particularly in those cases where a child is held in detention or shelter care. For example, Illinois allows at least 3 days before appearance when the summons is personally served to the parties, 5 days when notification is by certified mail, and 10 days when notification is by publication. If it becomes necessary to change dates, notice of the new dates must be given, by certified mail or other reasonable means, to each respondent served with a summons (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-525, 2011). Further, Texas law states the following:

If a person to be served with a summons is in this state and can be found, the summons shall be served upon him personally at least

two days before the day of the adjudication hearing. If he is in this state and cannot be found, but his address is known or can with reasonable diligence be ascertained, the summons may be served on him by mailing a copy by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at least five days before the day of the hearing. If he is outside this state but he can be found or his address is known, or his whereabouts or address can with reasonable diligence be ascertained, service of the summons may be made either by delivering a copy to him personally or mailing a copy to him by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at least five days before the day of the hearing. (Texas Family Code Annotated, 53.07 [a], 2007)

Illinois law, Texas law, and the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 23[a, b]) provisions on service of summons are similar. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act allows at least 24 hours before the hearing when the summons is personally served and 5 days when certified mail or publication is used.

Service of the summons may be made by any person authorized by the court—usually a county sheriff, coroner, or juvenile probation officer. If the information received by the court indicates that the juvenile needs to be placed in detention or shelter care, the court may endorse on the summons an order that the child should be taken into immediate custody and taken to the place of detention or shelter care designated by the court.

Following the filing of the petition and proper notification, the adjudicatory hearing is held. In delinquency cases, this is the juvenile court’s equivalent of an adult criminal trial.

Adjudicatory Hearing The adjudicatory hearing is a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the allegations in the petition are valid. In delinquency cases, it is the rough equivalent of a criminal trial. In cases of dependency, neglect, or authoritative intervention, the adjudicatory hearing more closely resembles a civil trial. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has extended the legalistic principle of due process to the juvenile justice system, not all rights accorded under the Constitution and its amendments have been incorporated into the juvenile system. For example, in 1971 the Court held that juveniles had no constitutional right to a jury trial because the juvenile proceeding had not yet been held to be a criminal prosecution within the meaning and reach of the Sixth Amendment (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). The Court reiterated that the due process standard of “fundamental fairness” should be applied to juvenile court proceedings. However, the Court further stated that it was unwilling to “remake the juvenile proceeding into a full adversary process.” As indicated previously, some states do currently allow trial by jury. However, most cases are tried by a juvenile judge. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 24[a]) recommends that hearings be conducted by the court without a jury. The Supreme Court was clear in its holding that when the state undertakes to prove a child delinquent for committing a criminal act, it must do so beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 1970). The Uniform Juvenile Court Act not only advocates this standard of proof for the delinquency issue but also extends this standard to the unruly category (sec. 29[b]). Some states have adopted this recommended standard (New York Family Court Act, 342.2 [2], 2010; North Dakota Century Code, 27-20-29 [2], 2007; Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.03 [f], 2007). The standard applicable to categories such as deprived, abused or neglected, and dependent is usually the civil standard of preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence. For example, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[c]) requires “beyond a reasonable doubt” to determine delinquency but allows the civil standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to determine whether the adjudicated delinquent is in need of treatment or rehabilitation. In general, of course, it is more difficult to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (no reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge) than to determine fault based on a preponderance of evidence.

The adjudicatory hearing is generally, but not always, closed to the public. Because of intense pressures to get tough on juvenile crime and to hold the juvenile court more accountable, some states have authorized open hearings in selected criminal cases (Georgia Code, 15-11-78, 2010; Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.08 [a], 2007); however, the judge can close the court to public access if he or she believes it is in the best interest of the child to do so. Colorado, as an example, states the following:

The general public shall not be excluded from hearings held under this article unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of the juvenile or of the community to exclude the general public, and, in such event, the court shall admit only such persons as have an interest in the case or work of the court, including persons whom the district attorney, the juvenile, or his or her parents or guardian wish to be present. (Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-110, 2012)

Although the Sixth Amendment declares that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,” juvenile court acts prohibit these public hearings on the grounds that opening such hearings would be detrimental to the child. Although the application of the “public trial” concept of the Sixth Amendment has not been adopted in most juvenile court acts, other due process provisions of the amendment have been incorporated into juvenile court acts as a result of the Gault decision. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 24[d]) states that the general public shall be excluded except for parties, counsel, witnesses, and other persons requested by a party and approved by the court as having an interest in the case or in the work of the court. Those persons having an interest in the work of the court include members of the bar and press who may be admitted on the condition that they will refrain from divulging any information that could identify the child or family involved.

As discussed previously, the due process concept of “speedy trial” contained in the Sixth Amendment has been incorporated into juvenile court acts. Specific time frames are contained in most acts designating the length of time between custody, detention, adjudicatory, and disposition hearings. Requests for delay are entertained by the juvenile court whenever reasonable and justifiable motions are submitted. Unfortunately, it

has been common in some jurisdictions for juvenile court judges to ignore the time limits established by the statute, so a speedy trial might not result. Some judges appear to ignore the statutory requirement of an adjudicatory hearing within 30 days of the time the petition is filed (without detention) even when there is no motion for a continuance by defense counsel (Butts, 1997; Schwartz, Weiner, & Enosh, 1999). Although this practice has been overturned in the New York Court of Appeals (In re George T., 2002), on occasion a juvenile might not be brought before the court for an adjudicatory hearing for as long as 6 months—a clear violation of the statutory requirement. It is possible, of course, for defense counsel to move for dismissal or to appeal, but very seldom are such actions taken. When motions to dismiss based on procedural irregularities are made, they are almost routinely overruled. Once again, the gap between theory and practice comes to light.

According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29), after hearing the evidence on the petition, the court will make and file its findings about whether the child is deprived, delinquent, abused, neglected, or unruly as alleged in the petition. If the evidence does not support the allegation, the petition will be dismissed, and the child will be discharged from any detention or other restrictions. If the court finds that the allegation is supported by evidence using the appropriate standard of proof for that hearing, the court may proceed immediately or hold an additional hearing to hear evidence and decide whether the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the finding of delinquency where felonious acts were committed is sufficient to sustain a finding that the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation. However, even though the court may find that the child is within the alleged criteria of the petition, it might not find that the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation. The court may then dismiss the proceeding and discharge the child from any detention or other restrictions (sec. 29[a, b]).

It should also be noted that juvenile court judges in many states may decide prior to or in the early stages of the adjudicatory hearing to “continue the case under supervision.” An example of an order for continuance under supervision is shown in Figure 7.3. This usually means that the judge postpones adjudication and specifies a period during which the judge (through court officers) will observe the juvenile. If the juvenile has no further difficulties during the specified period, the petition will be dismissed. If the juvenile does get into trouble again, the judge will proceed with the original adjudicatory hearing.

Continuance under supervision may benefit the juvenile by allowing him or her to escape adjudication as delinquent. It is generally used by juvenile court judges for precisely this purpose. However, if the juvenile did not commit the alleged delinquent act, he or she may be unjustly subjected to court surveillance. If the juvenile’s parents or counselor object to the procedure and request the judge to proceed with the adjudicatory hearing, the judge must, in most jurisdictions, comply with those wishes.

In the adjudicatory hearing, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act and the juvenile court acts of many states separate the issues of establishing whether the child is within the defined category and whether the state should exercise wardship or further custody. The determination of further custody or wardship is usually made on the basis of what type of treatment or rehabilitation the court believes is necessary.

Figure 7.3 Continuance Under Supervision Form

The term ward of the court means simply that the court, as an agency of the state, has found it necessary to exercise its role of in loco parentis. The decisions that are normally made by the parents are now made by a representative of the court, usually the juvenile probation officer in consultation with the juvenile court judge. As indicated in the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[c, d]), the determination for continued custody for treatment or rehabilitation purposes may be made as part of the adjudicatory hearing or in a separate hearing. The court, in determining wardship, will receive both oral and written evidence and will use this evidence to the extent of its probative value even though such evidence might not have been admissible in the adjudicatory hearing. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is recommended by the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[c]) in determining wardship. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[e]) also permits a continuance of hearings for a reasonable period to receive reports and other evidence bearing on the disposition or the need of treatment or rehabilitation. The child may be continued in detention or released from detention and placed under the supervision of the court during the period of continuance. Priority in wardship or dispositional hearings will always be given to those children who are in detention or have been removed from their homes pending a final dispositional order.

To avoid giving a child a record, it has become a common practice in some jurisdictions for juvenile courts to place a child under probation supervision without reaching any formal finding. This practice may be engaged in without filing any formal petition. Placing children under probation supervision should not be confused with continuances granted by the court to complete investigations for wardship or disposition proceedings. Although “unofficial probation or supervision” may help to divert less serious cases from adjudication and thus avoid stigmatizing the child involved, it has been subject to much criticism as the result of disregarding due process requirements.

Social Background Investigation, Social Summary Report, Presentence Investigation, or Predisposition Investigation After a determination in the adjudicatory hearing that the allegations in the petition have been established and that wardship is necessary, a dispositional hearing is set to determine final disposition of the case. There are differences among the states as to whether the dispositional hearing must be separated from the adjudicatory hearing (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/2-22 [1], 2011; Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.04 [1], 2007). In some states, the two hearings are separate because different procedures and rights are involved. For example, in some states in an

adjudicatory hearing on delinquency, the standard of proof and the rules of evidence in the nature of criminal proceedings are applicable; however, the civil rules of evidence and standard of proof are applicable to adjudicatory hearings on neglect, dependent, abuse, and minors requiring authoritative intervention (in need of supervision) cases (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/2-18[1], 2011; Iowa Code Annotated, 232.47 [5], 2009). Yet in the Illinois dispositional hearing for all categories, all evidence helpful in determining the disposition, including oral and written reports, may be admitted and relied on to the extent of its probative value even though it might not be relevant for the purposes of the adjudicatory hearing (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-22, 2011). Similar wording and evidentiary concepts are contained in the Uniform Juvenile Court Act’s (sec. 29[d]) references to determination of whether the adjudicated child requires treatment and rehabilitation and to the dispositional stage of the case.

Between the adjudicatory hearing and the dispositional hearing, the court’s staff members (usually probation officers) are engaged in obtaining information useful in aiding the court to determine final disposition of a case. This information is obtained through social background investigations and is premised on the belief that individualized justice is a major function of the juvenile court. Social background investigations, also known as social summary reports or predisposition investigations in some states, typically include information about the child, the child’s parents, school, work, and general peer relations as well as other environmental factors. This information is gathered through interviews with relevant persons in the community and is compiled in report form to aid the judge in making a dispositional decision. The probative value of some information collected is questionable and can certainly be challenged in the dispositional hearing. Some juvenile judges delegate the court’s staff to make recommendations and to justify the elimination of some options or alternatives from consideration. Unfortunately, social background investigations have been used by some courts prior to the adjudicatory hearings, and this can result in an adjudication of delinquency without proving that the accused juvenile committed the acts of delinquency alleged in the petition. As a result of the Kent decision (Kent v. United States, 1966), counsel for the juvenile has been extended the right to review the contents of staff social background investigations used in waiver hearings because there is no irrefutable presumption of accuracy attached to staff reports. This principle has been extended by most juvenile court acts to legal counsel representing the child in dispositional hearings.

Dispositional Hearing Whereas the adjudicatory hearing determines whether the allegations are supported by the evidence, the dispositional hearing is concerned only with what alternatives are available to meet the needs of the juvenile. In fact, some states specify by statute that the rules of evidence do not apply during dispositional proceedings (ILCS, 705 sec. 405/2-22 [1], 2011; Iowa Code Annotated, 232.50 [3], 2009). Dispositional alternatives are clearly stated in each state’s juvenile court act, although states may differ in the dispositional alternatives available to juveniles in the separate categories (i.e., delinquency, dependency, abused/neglected). An option available for the deprived child might not be available for the delinquent child. According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 30), the deprived child may remain with his or her parents, subject to conditions imposed by the court, including supervision by the court. Also according to Section 30, the deprived child may be temporarily transferred legally to any of the following:

i. any individual . . . found by the court to be qualified to receive and care for the child; ii. an agency or other private organization licensed or otherwise authorized by the law to receive and provide care for the child; iii. the Child Welfare Department of the [county] [state] [or other public agency authorized by law to receive and provide care for the child];

or iv. an individual in another state with or without supervision.

For the delinquent child, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 31) states that the court may make any disposition best suited to the juvenile’s treatment, rehabilitation, and welfare, including the following:

1. any order authorized by Section 30 for the disposition of a “deprived child”; 2. probation under the supervision of the probation officer . . . under conditions and limitations the court prescribes; 3. placing the child in an institution, camp, or other facility for delinquent children operated under the direction of the court [or other local

public authority]; or 4. committing the child to [designate the state department to which commitments of delinquent children are made or, if there is no

department, the appropriate state institution for delinquent children].

According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 32), the unruly child may be disposed of by the court in any authorized disposition allowable for the delinquent except commitment to the state correctional agency. However, if the unruly child is found to be not amenable to treatment under the disposition, the court, after another hearing, may make any disposition otherwise authorized for the delinquent.

A general trend occurring in juvenile court acts is to refrain from committing all categories of youth, other than delinquents, to juvenile correctional institutions unless the unruly or in-need-of-supervision child warrants such action after other alternatives have failed. Commitment to an institution is generally regarded as a last resort.

Most juvenile court acts also provide for transferring a juvenile demonstrating mental challenges or mental illness to the appropriate authority within the state. A similar section is included in the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 35). With the advent of a multiplicity of community treatment programs and child guidance centers, many of the current dispositions contain conditions for attendance at these centers. Dispositions of probation or suspended sentence often require compulsory attendance at a community-based treatment or rehabilitation program. Violation of these conditions may result in revocation of probation or a suspended sentence. This is accomplished through a revocation hearing. Most states now specify the maximum amount of time for confinement of a juvenile. Extensions of the original disposition generally require another hearing with all rights accorded in the original dispositional hearing. The court may, under some circumstances, terminate its dispositional

order prior to the expiration date if it appears that the purpose of the order has been accomplished. Juvenile court acts generally terminate all orders affecting the juvenile on reaching the age of majority in those states. This termination results in discharging the juvenile from further obligation or control. If the disposition is probation, both the conditions of probation and its duration are spelled out by the court. For copies of dispositional and sentencing court orders, see Figures 7.4 and 7.5.

Figure 7.4 Dispositional Order

Figure 7.5 Sentencing Order

Career Opportunity: Magistrate

Job description: Determine whether probable cause exists when the police make arrests. Determine whether, and ensure that, defendants have been properly advised of their rights. Decide whether to detain defendants. Supervise preliminary hearings, hold trials, and sentence offenders.

Employment requirements: Must have a law degree and be admitted to the bar.

Beginning salary: Varies widely depending on jurisdiction. Benefits also vary widely.

Summary It is essential that those involved in the juvenile justice network be completely familiar with the appropriate procedures for dealing with juveniles and with the rules governing other members of the juvenile justice system. This awareness helps to ensure that the interests of juveniles will be protected within the guidelines established by society. Otherwise, juveniles’ rights may be violated, practitioners may be put in a position where they cannot take appropriate actions, and society might not be protected as a result of ignorance of proper procedures.

For example, a police officer may take a juvenile into custody for a serious delinquent act (e.g., robbery). The officer may, on interrogation, obtain a confession from the juvenile. It may be impossible for the state’s attorney to prosecute if the police officer failed to warn the juvenile of his or her rights according to Miranda, if a reasonable attempt to contact the juvenile’s parents was not made, if the juvenile was frightened into confessing when his or her parents or legal representative were not present, or if the evidence in the case was obtained illegally. Of course, there will be no adjudication by the judge, and rehabilitation or corrections personnel will have no chance to rehabilitate, correct, or protect through detention. In the long run, then, neither the best interests of society nor those of the juvenile will be served.

Every state has a juvenile court act spelling out appropriate procedures for dealing with juveniles from the initial apprehension through final disposition. In looking at several juvenile court acts, we have seen that there are many uniformities in these acts as well as many points of disagreement. Uniformities are often the result of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, whereas differences often result from legislative efforts in the individual states. It is crucial, therefore, for all juvenile justice practitioners to become familiar with the juvenile court act under which they operate so that the best interests of juveniles, other practitioners, and society may be served to the maximum extent possible.

Key Terms bail 184 clear and convincing evidence 196 continuance under supervision 197 detention 187 detention hearing 187 Fourth Amendment 183 guardian ad litem 183 interrogation 183 notification 195 preliminary conference 182 shelter care 187 Sixth Amendment 183 social background investigations 200 stationhouse adjustment 182 taking into custody 185 totality of circumstances 183

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What are the constitutional rights guaranteed to adults in our society that are not always guaranteed to juveniles in juvenile court

proceedings? What is the rationale for depriving juveniles of these rights?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of informal adjustments, unofficial probation, and continuance under supervision? 3. Discuss the pros and cons of confidentiality of juvenile court records and of allowing public access to juvenile court. 4. Consider the What Would You Do? scenario at the beginning of the chapter and answer the following questions:

a. At what point in the process was your daughter when you received the phone call from the county detention center? b. Was there an opportunity for your daughter to be released prior to court? If so, what factors might influence this decision? Who

would make this decision? What role would you play in this decision? What about the past behaviors of your daughter? c. If your daughter proceeded to a detention hearing, what factors would the judge consider in determining to hold or release your

daughter? d. Assuming that a petition is filed, what are the juvenile court’s obligations with respect to the parties in the proceedings?

Suggested Readings 32A-1-1 NMSA (1978).

Alabama Code § 12-15-56 (2015).

Arkansas Code § 9-27-309 (2010).

Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-110 (1997).

Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-509 (2012).

Davis, S. M. (2006). Rights of juveniles: The juvenile justice system (2nd ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.

Fagan, J. (2005, September). Adolescents, maturity, and the law. American Prospect, 16, A5–A7.

Georgia Code, 15-11-47 (d) (2010).

Georgia Code Annotated (2009).

Georgia Criminal and Traffic Law Manual. (2014). Juvenile Code. Charlottesville, VA: LexisNexis.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, 571-32 (h) (2015).

Illinois Compiled Statutes, ch. 705, sec. 5-501 (2) (2011).

In the matter of George T. (2002). New York Law School Law Review, 47(2/3). Retrieved from www.nyls.edu

Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, ch. 119, sec. 55A (2016).

Missouri Revised Statutes, ch. 11, sec. 211.061 (2015).

Missouri Revised Statutes, ch. 11, sec. 211.321 (2015).

Missouri Revised Statutes, ch. 11, sec. 211.462 (2015).

Montana Code Annotated, 41-3-425 (2015).

Montana Code Annotated, 41-5-1502 (1) (2015).

Myers, W. (2006). Roper v. Simmons: The collision of national consensus and proportionality review. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 947–994.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2005). Juvenile delinquency guidelines: Improving court practice in juvenile delinquency cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Nebraska Revised Statutes, 43-253 (5) (2012).

New York Family Court Act, 342.2 (2) (2010).

Oregon Juvenile Code, 419C.097 (2015).

Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37-1-110 (2012).

Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37-1-119 (2012).

Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.03 (c) (2007).

Texas Family Code Annotated (2009).

West Virginia Code Annotated, 49-5-6 (2012).

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.