Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF J.L.M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 100111

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF J.L.M.  IN THE MATTER OF J.L.M. 2005 OK 15 109 P.3d 336 Case Number: 100111 Decided: 03/08/2005 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA In the Matter of J.L.M., an alleged delinquent child, STANLEY MCGUFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Love County, Oklahoma, Honorable Charles Roberts, Trial Judge ¶0 In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, the trial court ordered both the custodial mother and the non-custodial father to pay restitution for damages to a school building caused by their then-fourteen year old son. The son had not lived with the father for thirteen years. The father appealed and we retained the appeal. The issue is whether 10 O.S.2001 § 7303-5.3(A)(8)(c) authorizes a trial court to order the father to pay restitution under these facts. We hold it does. TRIAL COURT ORDER OF RESTITUTION AFFIRMED. Michael D. Tipps, Ardmore, Oklahoma, for Appellant. Mitchell D. Sperry, District Attorney, and Gary Brown, Assistant District Attorney, Marietta, Oklahoma, for Appellee. Colbert, J. ¶1 The material facts are not disputed. J.L.M. was born March 3, 1989. When he was about three months old, his mother obtained a divorce from his father in Love County, Oklahoma. The divorce decree awarded custody to the mother and reasonable visitation to the father. J.L.M. has not lived with his father since the divorce and has seen his father only four times since 2000. In 2003, when J.L.M. was fourteen years old, he broke into the Marietta High School by removing a screen and entering through a window. While unlawfully using a mobile radio that was capable of receiving transmissions on frequencies used by law enforcement agencies, he vandalized several rooms in the school building and destroyed a server and other property belonging to the school. The cost to repair the damaged building and contents was $11,076.00. ¶2 On September 22, 2003, the trial court entered an order that adjudicated J.L.M. delinquent, made him a ward of the court, placed him in the custody of Oklahoma Juvenile Affairs and detained him pending placement. The trial court also set a hearing on the amount of restitution due and how it should be paid. On October 28, 2003, at the completion of the hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $2,500, to be paid one half by the mother and one half by the father. The father appealed and we retained the appeal. ¶3 The applicable statute provides in part: A. The following kinds of orders of disposition may be made in respect to children adjudicated in need of supervision or delinquent: * * * 8. With respect to a child adjudicated a delinquent child, the court may: * * * c. . . . order the parents or custodial parent of any child living with the parents or custodial parent at the time of the criminal or delinquent act of the child to remit the amount of restitution ordered by the court. . . . 10 O.S.2001 § 7303-5.3. ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶4 The issue is whether subsection (A)(8)(c) authorizes a trial court to order a non-custodial parent to pay restitution for damage caused by a child who was not living in the non-custodial parent's home at the time of the delinquent act. Because this is an issue of statutory construction our standard of review is de novo. Fanning v. Brown, ANALYSIS ¶5 The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute. World Publishing Co. v. Miller, ¶6 We agree with the trial court that the language at issue is ambiguous. It could be read to authorize a trial court to order restitution from only the custodial parent with whom the child was living at the time of the delinquent act, or from both parents. ¶7 The ambiguous language is: "The court may order the parents or custodial parent of any child living with the parents or the custodial parent at the time of the criminal or delinquent act. . . to remit the amount of restitution ordered by the court." (emphasis added). The Legislature's use of the disjunctive word "or" indicates its intent that either the custodial parent alone (with whom the child was living), or both parents, may be ordered to pay restitution. The word "parents" stands by itself and is not modified by the phrase "custodial parent". The words "living with" modify both "parents" and "custodial parent." Further, the construction of the word "parents" to include a non-custodial parent with whom the child was not living is consistent with other language in subsection (A)(8)(c) which allows the court to "consider any hardship of such order on the parents or custodial parent." The subsection also provides that "if the court orders the parents or custodial parent to remit the amount of restitution," the court shall also order the child to perform community service to earn the amount paid by such child's "parents or custodial parent." Again, non-custodial parents are not excluded. ¶8 In interpreting similar language, the Court of Civil Appeals in In re C.A.R., ¶9 Other jurisdictions have used virtually identical language in holding that a parent cannot avoid responsibility by delegating parental responsibilities to others. See, e.g., In re Adoption of Doe, ¶10 We believe the public policy enunciated in these decisions is consistent with the Legislature's intent in enacting § 7303-5.3(A)(8)(c). Accordingly, we hold that § 7303-5.3(A)(8)(c) authorizes a trial court to order a non-custodial parent to pay restitution for damage caused by a child who was not living in the non-custodial parent's home at the time of the delinquent act. TRIAL COURT ORDER OF RESTITUTION AFFIRMED. WINCHESTER, V.C.J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR and COLBERT, JJ., concur. WATT, C.J., OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., dissent. FOOT