Opinion ID: 4303541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purposes. The purposes of this part are:

Text: . . . . D. To secure for any juvenile removed from the custody of the juvenile’s parents the necessary treatment, care, guidance, and discipline to assist that juvenile in becoming a responsible and productive member of society. Id. § 3002(1)(D). If we are all to pursue the Legislature’s goals in juvenile proceedings, a much greater range of “treatment, care, guidance, and discipline” 22 options must be available to address the individualized needs and challenges of each child and youth. [¶31] As the Court notes cogently, “In the circumstances presented here, the only meaningful less restrictive alternative to commitment was to place J.R. on probation.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 16. In this context, where J.R.’s behavior was escalating consistently despite the resources that had been provided, despite parental efforts, and despite the adults’ forewarning of potential consequences of his errant behavior, “[t]he trajectory of his behaviors clearly portends future crime.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 19. In the absence of a resource that was capable of interrupting the escalation of his unacceptable behavior, J.R. would very likely have gone on to commit more serious crimes, possibly harming other members of the public and certainly harming his own potential. Accordingly, the State’s position and the court’s decision were appropriate and within reason given their alternatives. [¶32] Nonetheless, the fact that the court was left with two stark alternatives—probation, which would almost certainly fail, or incarceration, which has its own substantial negative repercussions10—is a tragedy. While the 10 To be clear, it is the actual incarceration of the youth, with its life-long stigma and emotional ramifications, to which I refer here. I do not intend this reference as a criticism of the staff at Long Creek. In a recent report, the Center for Children’s Law & Policy praised the “dedicated professionals at Long Creek who are committed to tackling long-standing problems and improving conditions, 23 lack of alternatives available today may not be directly contrary to the strictures of Maine law or the Constitutions, we can and must do better for Maine’s youth. [¶33] The lack of alternatives available to the court, to the youth and his family, and to the attorneys attempting to carry out the Legislature’s mandate for rehabilitation of a youth who is out of control, is both shortsighted and fraught with potential long-term consequences. We, in government, must find additional alternatives for our children and youth. That continuum of care should include both well-proven and promising innovative programs, including such options as evidence-based behavioral modification programs, residential treatment facilities, enhanced mental health treatment services, and even group homes with structure and oversight, within or near the communities of their families. policies, and practices at the facility.” Center for Children’s Law & Policy, Long Creek Youth Dev. Ctr. Conditions Assessment Narrative Report, at 4 (September 2017). At the same time, the report identified several critical shortcomings, including: the incarceration of many youth at Long Creek for low-risk offenses, the high rate of referrals of youth to Long Creek from mental health placements, the limited number of community-based mental health services for Maine’s adolescent population, questions about the quality and effectiveness of existing community-based mental health services, the high cost of keeping a youth at the facility ($250,000 per year per youth), and the availability of federal funds (e.g., through Medicaid) to support community-based programs but not institutional care. Id. at 73. 24 [¶34] As we plan for the future of this great State, it is my hope that new and effective alternatives will be available for our children and youth who are in need of individualized services. Tina Heather Nadeau, Esq. (orally), The Law Office of Tina Heather Nadeau, PLLC, Portland, for Appellant J.R. Maeghan Maloney, District Attorney, and Carie James, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District IV, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine Emma E. Bond, Esq., Zachary L. Heiden, Esq., and Meagan S. Sway, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation, Portland, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation Skowhegan District Court docket numbers JV-2017-05, JV-2017-21, JV-2017-34 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY