Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/so-you-just-got-assigned-to-juvenile-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:53:36+00:00

Document:
As a slightly seasoned prosecutor of about two years, I thought (foolishly) I was ready for anything. I had tried felonies and misdemeanors and had even supervised newer prosecutors as a chief in a misdemeanor court. Yet when I was assigned to a juvenile unit, I was amazed and at times confused by the quasi-criminal world of juvenile law. The very language and focus are entirely different for everyone in the system. I liken it to Dorothy’s experience finding herself in the strange, Technicolor world of Oz after the gray of Kansas.
Now an appellate prosecutor, I am part of the team addressing questions from our juvenile prosecutors to assist them with the unique set of legal issues that arise in such prosecutions. This article is intended to serve as an introduction for those newly assigned to juvenile prosecution to the basic differences between juvenile law and adult prosecution.
The first challenge a new juvenile-law prosecutor will face is the terminology. First and foremost, strike the word “defendant” from your vocabulary, at least while you are in juvenile court. Because the system is civil in nature (at least according to the Family Code) we revert to civil law terms: “respondent” not “defendant” and “petitioner” not “prosecutor.” Likewise, a juvenile does not face trial on an indictment. No, he answers to a petition as he would in a civil suit. The petition may change over the course of a case because you, the petititioner, amend it under the same cause number (rather than re-indicting it).
Moreover, a child does not commit a crime. Rather, he engages in delinquent conduct or is a child in need of supervision (often abbreviated as CINS). The CINS offenses are generally class C misdemeanors, with the exception of huffing (chemical inhalation),2 whereas engaging in delinquent conduct includes the statutes for most class B and above offenses.3 The determination of whether the offense falls into the CINS or delinquent conduct category matters, as it would in adult court, because the range of potential sanctions changes depending on which category it falls into (similar to the difference between misdemeanors and felonies).
Also in the vein of not making things seem like criminal court, the judge or jury finds the child “responsible” or “not responsible” instead of “guilty” or “not guilty.” The system, similar to criminal court, is broken down into two parts, but rather than guilt/innocence and punishment, we call the first part the adjudication phase and the second part the disposition.5 Yet, unlike the adult system, the Family Code provides for the possibility that a court may adjudicate a child delinquent but find that no disposition is necessary.6 The fact-finder, be it the judge in most cases or a jury on a determinate petition, must make the finding that rehabilitation or protection are necessary before it can make a disposition on the case.7 Interestingly, unlike the adult system, the default position would be “no disposition” or no punishment.
The participating parties and overseers of the system also change. The juvenile board is a committee of judges who have responsibility to oversee the juvenile justice system in their particular county.8 A “juvenile processing office” is where police usually take a custodial statement from a juvenile. A juvenile board must designate each particular location used as a “juvenile processing office” and certify that it meets the requirements designated by the Family Code.9 Just remember that each county must have such a board, and the designations it makes will matter on search and seizure, as well as custodial statements taken from juveniles.
Yet, being a court of limited jurisdiction and following the Rules of Civil Procedure in most matters creates different burdens on the State. For one, it is an open question between various appellate districts about whether the age of the child at the time of offense is an element that the petitioner must prove at trial. The El Paso Court of Appeals requires that a child must object to a lack of jurisdiction during the adjudication or transfer hearing or he waives it, thereby not requiring that the petitioner prove the child’s age to show jurisdiction.22 Yet, even if not a true element, for safety’s sake it is best to establish it, and one need do so only by a preponderance of the evidence.23 This is easily done by producing a birth certificate or any person with knowledge of the child’s age (including the parent who is helpfully sitting at counsel table with the child) to testify the child was over 10 and under 17 years old on the offense date alleged in the petition (or the respondent can stipulate to his age). Additionally, the netherworld of juvenile law relying on the civil rules harkens back to our law school education on in personam and subject-matter jurisdiction because the petitioner is responsible for proving the parties were served. That leads into the next section: how to go about prosecuting a juvenile.
4) take him back to his school principal if school is in session and the school will accept responsibility for him.25 The officer must also promptly notify the child’s guardian and the official designated by the juvenile board.26 Failure to comply with these provisions can require suppression of evidence, such as a statement obtained from the child, when there is a causal connection between the statutory violation and police obtaining of the evidence.27 These provisions apply even if the juvenile court certifies the child and you are the prosecutor in adult district court. It is vitally important to check that the officers followed guidelines for properly detaining the juvenile. These procedures must be followed before police can take the child to find evidence or take a statement from the child under §51.095.
As a practical matter, in both a certification hearing or at trial, it is best to offer a certified copy of the certificate of service with the attached petition as part of the evidence that the juvenile court had jurisdiction over the child at the time it heard the case. This protects the State for direct and collateral attacks for lack of jurisdiction.
Yet, just when you have gotten a handle on the civil-law angle, do not forget that Chapter 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure still applies (but only to the extent that it doesn’t conflict with the Family Code). That requires the petitioner to keep in mind search and seizure law when advising officers and evaluating cases for trial, even when dealing with certified juveniles in adult district court. As discussed above, failure to comply with the proper procedures for taking a child into custody, including notifying his parents or taking him “without delay” to a detention facility or juvenile processing office, can lead to suppression when causally connected to obtaining the evidence.
The local juvenile probation department will usually assess a suggested sanction level on the probation report it supplies each time you appear in court or on a detention hearing.46 This social history report is evidence offered to the judge—but not a jury—under §54.04(b) during the disposition hearing, as well as any relevant testimony that would assist in determining the proper rehabilitative efforts that should be made as part of the disposition. And because article 37.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to juveniles, the State may present extraneous bad act evidence during a disposition hearing to either the judge or the jury.
So you have a starting point when making plea offers or dispositional requests from the court at a hearing, assume anything in the first and second sanction levels require less supervision, usually consisting of deferred prosecution.49 Levels Three and Four dictate probation, Level Four being intensive supervision by juvenile probation with programs and rehabilitative services.50 Level Five provides for placement outside of the child’s home in a secure facility such as a boot camp program, and Level Six leads to the security of TYC for an indeterminate period.51 Level Seven, the final level, is reserved for determinate sentences.52 The local probation department will also be willing to acquaint you with all the possible programs and services available to help rehabilitate the child and even provide appropriate assistance to the parent through counseling and education. Do not be afraid to ask what programs probation recommends when assessing what to include as suggested conditions of probation on a plea or a request to the juvenile court during disposition.
3) the child cannot receive in his home the quality of care, level of support, and supervision needed to meet the conditions of probation.53 Be prepared to offer evidence to establish these elements during a disposition hearing or plea without an agreed recommendation if not found in the probation report that you intend to offer as evidence to the judge or in the rare circumstance when you try disposition to a jury.
The confidentiality provisions may apply even to those that are permitted to attend a hearing. A juvenile court may close the courtroom and exclude the public when good cause is shown, but it must permit the victim and victim’s family to attend unless removed because of the Rule of Sequestration of witnesses.58 Moreover, the presumption shifts toward closing the courtroom when the child is under the age of 14 at the time of the hearing “unless the court finds that the interests of the child or the interests of the public would be better served by opening the hearing to the public.”59 Do not assume everyone and anyone will be allowed to hear the trial or plea.
There are far more intricacies in juvenile law than I had time or space to address in this article. But I encourage you to not only curl up with your copy of the Family Code and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, but also to review relevant sections of Robert O. Dawson’s book, Texas Juvenile Law, considered the authority on such matters. They will lead you to answers when you have questions about juvenile law, more often than not.
I wish you good luck upon entering juvenile court! You will survive your time there and may even come to truly appreciate the experience you gain. I know I did. But if not, although not as quick as clicking your ruby red heels, you will eventually return to the familiarity of criminal court, and be the more knowledgeable for your time in juvenile.
1 Although the Family Code does not refer to it as such, prosecutors and courts have come to call discretionary transfer to adult district court as “certifying the juvenile” or as a “certification petition,” but the proper title for it is “Petition to Waive Exclusive Original Jurisdiction and Discretionary Transfer.” See Tex. Fam. Code §54.02.
2 “Huffing,” is a violation of Tex. Health & Safety Code §485.001 wherein an “abusable volatile chemical” with a label cautioning against inhalation is inhaled or ingested which affects the user’s central nervous system, and can induce intoxication, hallucination, or elation, but further may distort thinking process, balance, and coordination.
3 Tex. Fam. Code §51.03.
4 Tex. Fam. Code §§52.01(a) and 52.015.
5 See Tex. Fam. Code §54.04.
6 Tex. Fam. Code §54.04(c).
7 Tex. Fam. Code §54.04(a) and (c).
8 Robert O. Dawson, Texas Juvenile Law, (7th ed. 2008) at 6.
9 See Tex. Fam. Code §52.025(a).
12 Tex. Fam. Code §54.10.
13 See Tex. Fam. Code §54.10(a) and (e).
14 See Tex. Gov’t Code §74.053(b).
15 Such objections follow the procedures dictated under the Tex. Gov’t Code §74.053. See also In re M.A.V., 40 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (holding timely objection to visiting judge required that visiting judge not hear certification hearing).
16 Tex. Fam. Code §51.115.
17 In re D.M., 191 S.W.3d 381, 390 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, rev. denied).
18 Tex. Fam. Code §51.11(a).
19 Tex. Fam. Code §51.11(c).
20 Tex. Fam. Code §51.02(2) and §51.04.
21 Tex. Fam. Code §51.041; but see Hum. Resources Code §61.084(e) and (g) (requiring that juvenile reaching age 19 must be released or transferred out of the Texas Youth Commission).
22 In re E.D.C., 88 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.).
23 Dawson, 37; see also Tex. Fam. Code §51.17(a) (applying civil rules unless in conflict); c.f. Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (holding State must prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 13.17, but that it is not an element of the offense, rather a jurisdictional component that can be waived by failing to object in the trial court).
24 Tex. Fam. Code §52.02(a)(1).
25 Tex. Fam. Code §52.02(a) (2)-(7). Please note there are exceptions for DWI cases permitting breath testing. Refer to Tex. Fam. Code §52.02(c) and (d) for those exceptions.
26 Tex. Fam. Code §52.02(b).
27 Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (requiring causal connection between violation of §52.02(b) parental notification requirement and the obtaining of the evidence, namely would notification of the parent have affected police obtaining of the evidence); Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (burden of persuasion on respondent to show causal connection between statutory violation and the evidence for which he seeks suppression); Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (requiring suppression when officer detoured from route to juvenile processing office to obtain the stolen property).
28 Tex. Fam. Code §53.02(a).
29 Tex. Fam. Code §54.01(e).
30 Tex. Fam. Code §54.01(h).
31 Tex. Fam. Code §51.17(a).
32 Tex. Fam. Code §§53.04, 53.06, and 53.07.
33 In re X.B., 369 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet. h.) (holding trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify disposition and commit juvenile to TYC when child not served with the petition and citation for the initial adjudication, permitting the later collateral attack because initial judgment of disposition was void for lack of jurisdiction).
34 Tex. Fam. Code §53.06(e).
35 Tex. Fam. Code §54.02(b) (requiring separate compliance with §§53.04, 53.05, 53.06, and 53.07 with a petition stating that the purpose of the hearing is to consider discretionary transfer).
36 See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985); Coronado v. State, 835 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); In re S.M.C., 338 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (interpreting New Jersey v. T.L.O. in the most recent published case in Texas); S.M.S., 338 S.W.3d at 165 (citing T.L.O., 105 S.Ct. at 745) (holding “sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness”).
38 Tex. Fam. Code §52.02(a).
39 Tex. Fam. Code §52.025.
40 See In the matter of D.J.C., 312 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (reversing in part because police excluded the grandmother from the interview room despite express request to be present in violation of §52.025 permitting accompaniment by parent or guardian); see also Cortez v. State, 240 S.W.3d 372 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (holding child did not assert right and finding record did not support that father asked to be present, then analyzing facts in terms of lack of causal connection).
41 Comer v. State, 776 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (requiring strict compliance with §52.02(a) and applying Article 38.23 to suppress juvenile’s statement that complied with §51.09 because officers violated §52.02(a) by delay when obtaining the statement before complying with the requirement to take juvenile to a processing office or detention); Baptist Vie Le v. State, 993 S.W.2d 650, 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (suppressing statement for failure to comply with §52.02(a)); In the matter of D.J.C., 312 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (failure to comply with Family Code to take statement in a designated juvenile processing office required suppression because State did not comply with all the terms of §51.095, but including in rationale other violations of the Family Code such as excluding grandmother); but see Gonzalez, 67 S.W.3d 910 (requiring causal connection between violation and obtaining evidence to suppress).
42 Tex. Fam. Code §51.095.
43 J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011) (taking a child’s age into account when determining voluntariness of statement and considering a child’s age in the custodial analysis, although not as a determinative factor, but as a significant one); Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 662-63 (2004) (considering the age of a child as a factor in determining whether reasonable person would have considered self in custody); Jeffley v. State, 38 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) (same).
44 Tex. Fam. Code §54.04(a).
45 Tex. Fam. Code §54.04(d)(3).
46 Tex. Fam. Code §59.002.
48 Dawson at 232 (citing In the Matter of E.T., No. 04-03-00796, 2004 WL 2533552 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by removing child from him on a contempt of court for violating a justice court order because record supported child uncontrollable and parent requested the placement).
49 Tex. Fam. Code §§59.004 and 59.005.
50 Tex. Fam. Code §§59.006 and 59.007.
51 Tex. Fam. Code §§59.008 and §59.009.
52 Tex. Fam. Code §59.010.
53 Tex. Fam. Code §54.04(i).
54 See Tex. Fam. Code §58.005.
55 See Tex. Fam. Code §54.0405 and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.352.
56 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 15.27.
57 Tex. Fam. Code §58.005.
58 Tex. Fam. Code §54.08.
60 Tex. Fam. Code §58.003(b).

References: §51
 §54
 §54
 §485
 §51
 §54
 §54
 §54
 §52
 §54
 §54
 §74
 §74
 §51
 §51
 §51
 §51
 §51
 §51
 §61
 §51
 v. 
 art. 13
 §52
 §52
 §52
 §52
 v. 
 §52
 v. 
 v. 
 §53
 §54
 §54
 §51
 §53
 §54
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §52
 §52
 §52
 v. 
 v. 
 §52
 §51
 §52
 v. 
 §52
 §51
 §51
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §54
 §54
 §59
 §59
 §59
 §54
 §58
 §54
 art. 62
 art. 15
 §58
 §54
 §58