No. 85-210 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1985 

IN THE MATTER OF J. F., a youth 

under 18 years of age. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Rosebud, 

The Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Garry P. Bunke, Forsyth, Monta.na 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

John S. Forsythe, County Attorney, Forysth, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Aug. 22, 1985 

Decided: December 18, 1985 

Filed: DEC 1 8 1985 
Xr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The Youth Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District for 

Rosebud County committed J. F. to Mountain View School for 

Girls until she attained the age of 21 years or was released 

by the school. J. F. contends that her commitment was not 

authorized under the statutes and was therefore improper. We 

reverse the Youth Court. 

The determinative issue is whether the Youth Court had 

jurisdiction under the facts to enter an order of commitment 

to Mountain View School. 

Fifteen year old J. F. lived with her mother, but ran 

away from home in June 1984. Pursuant to S 41.-5-401, MCA, a 

consent adjustment without petition was signed by the 

juvenile probation officer, J.F., and her mother on June 29, 

1984. J. F. agreed in the consent adjustment to be on 

probation for a period of 6 months from July 1, 1984 through 

December 31, 1984. The agreed conditions of J. F.'s 

probation included conducting herself in a law abiding 

manner, not being on the streets after curfew in the evening, 

attending school regularly, refraining from the use of drugs 

and intoxicants, and reporting to a probation officer each 

week. The Youth Court approved the consent adjustment on 

June 29, 1984. The written rules of probation stated that 

the "term of probation shall be for a period of six months, 

from July 1, 1984 through December 31, 1984, unless otherwise 

ordered by the Judge of the District Court of the Sixteenth 

Judicial District." 

A petition for youth hearing was filed August 13, 1984. 

The petition alleged that J. F. was a youth in need of 

supervision because of her habitual disobedience of the 

reasonable and lawful demands of her mother and running away 
from her legal residence. Summons were issued and served upon 

J. F. and upon her mother on August 13, 1984. No hearing was 

held on that petition, as required by statute. 

By order dated October 29, 1984, the Youth Court ordered 

J. F. and her mother to meet with a guidance counselor to 

draw up a viable living agreement, which was to be submitted 

to the court within two weeks. No such agreement was 

submitted. In the absence of any agreement, the Youth Court 

entered an order on November 19, 1984. That order provided 

J. F. was not to associate with certain adult males, was to 

abide by specific curfew rules, and was to refrain from 

non-affectionate physical contact or verbal harassment, and 

from physical damage to the home. The court ordered that if 

J. F. violated these conditions, she should be detained in 

the Rosebud County Jail for a minimum of 48 hours. If 

violated a second time, she was to be detained in jail and 

the Probation Department was to ask the County Attorney to 

file a petition, charging a violation of probation and 

seeking commitment of J. F. to Mountain School for Girls. 

The County Attorney filed a petition for violation of 

probation and commitment to Mountain View on February 25, 

1985. At that time and for the first time, counsel was 

appointed for J. F. A hearing was held and witnesses were 

produced on behalf of the State and J. F. At the conclusion 

of the hearing, the Youth Court issued an order for 

involuntary commitment, providing that J. F. be committed to 

Mountain View School for Girls until she reached 21 years of 

age or was sooner released. The court ordered that all 

psychological reports and evaluations be forwarded to 

Mountain View School for Girls and recommended psychiatric 

treatment. 
The determinative issue is whether the Youth Court had 

proper jurisdiction under the facts to enter an order of 

commitment to Mountain View School? 

The petition to have J. F. adjudicated a youth in need 

of supervision was filed on August 13, 1984. Service was 

properly made upon J. F. and also upon her mother. 

Thereafter, no attempt was made to follow the procedures set 

forth in S§ 41-5-501 through -533, MCA. In particular, prior 

to the orders of October 29, 1984 and November 19, 1984, no 

reference was made to S 41-5-516, MCA, which requires that a 

petition be dismissed with prejudice if a hearing has not 

begun within 15 days after service is completed. While it is 

true that section provides for a continuance upon motion of 

either party or the court, there is no order of continuance 

in the record. Therefore, it appears that the petition 

should have been dismissed with prejudice. 

We also note that 5 41-5-511, MCA, provides that the 

youth and parents shoul-d be advised by the court following 

the filing of a petition, that the youth may be represented 

by counsel in all stages of the proceedings. That section 

also provides that neither the youth nor the parent may waive 

counsel after the petition has been filed if commitment to a 

state correctional facility for a period of more than six 

months may result. 

The record does not indicate any attempt by the court to 

comply with the adjudicatory hearing or dispositional hearing 

provisions of SS 41-5-521 and -522, MCA. We conclude the 

proceedings in this case were not sufficient under the Youth 

Court Act to constitute a proper adjudication that J. F. was 

a youth in need of supervision. 

The consent adjustment without petition was properly 

completed in accordance with the requirements of S5 41-5-401 
through. -403, MCA. However, it is important to note that the 

term of probation was six months, from July 1 through 

December 31, 1.984. The orders by the Youth Court dated 

October 29 and November 19, 1984, were not sufficient to 

constitute an extension of that probationary period. We 

therefore must conclude that the period of probation expired 

on December 31, 1984. 

The transcript and the record of the proceedings 

indicate that there was a sincere attempt on the part of the 

County officials and the Youth Court judge to review the 

circumstances and to make arrangements for the best interests 

of J. F. The extensive testimony esta-blishes that the best 

efforts of a number of the local officials in Rosebud County 

had not been successful in helping J. F. to a point where she 

could be obedient to authority. As a result, the record 

tends to establish a basis for the order on the part of the 

Youth Court. However, the appropriate procedures were not 

followed. 

The actions on the part of J. F. which formed the basis 

for the order of commitment all took place in 1985, after the 

expiration of her probation period. In addition, § 

41-5-403(4), MCA, provides in pertinent part: 

If the youth violates his aftercare 

agreement as provided for in 53-30-226, 

he must he returned to the court for 

further disposition. No youth may be 

placed in a state youth correctional 

facility under informal adjustment. 

Under that statute, J. F. could not be placed in Mountain 

View School for Girls under the informal adjustment 

provisions of 5 41-5-401, MCA. 

We therefore reverse the order of involuntary commitment 

and remand the matter for such further proceedings as the 

Youth Court of Rosebud County may find appropriate. 
We concur: 

Justlces