Court Opinion

ID: 9795515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:30:30.355581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:10.753385
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice,
dissenting.
[130] I respectfully dissent. I do not believe this Court has the authority to alter the reserved question. The reserved question presented was specifically limited to the constitutional requirements of a public school district to provide an alternative education to properly expelled youths who are also adjudged delinquent. The question does not address the generic situation of expelled youths generally. The difference is significant. The question reserved includes, by *878implication, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. By altering the question, the majority has taken the question out of context and the result is an advisory opinion with no application to the underlying case.
[131] RM and BC were lawfully expelled from school and did not directly appeal their expulsions or bring declaratory judgment actions challenging the constitutionality of the terms and conditions of their expulsions (including the absence of any provision for publicly provided alternative education). The majority opinion would be appropriate only if this Court were reviewing the results of such a declaratory action.
[132] A great deal of analysis in the majority opinion is spent on the constitutionality of expulsion. Yet the expulsion is not at issue. The issue is whether the juvenile court can order the public school district to provide a free and appropriate alternative education to the expelled youths adjudged delinquent. Constitutionally, the question is whether the state has a compelling interest in not providing expelled students adjudged delinquent with an alternative education and whether not providing an alternative education to these students is narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest. Neither question is answered by the majority opinion. The conclusion of the majority opinion is that the Wyoming Constitution does not demand the provision of alternative. education to expelled students, but nothing prevents the provision of alternative education.1 Thus, the majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the juvenile court can order a public school district to provide alternative education, exactly what the juvenile court did in the underlying case and what the public school district is attempting to protest.2
[T 83] The particular context of the actual reserved question presented does not lend itself to proper review by this Court,. The reserved question, while raising a constitutional issue, also specifically refers to the students being subject to the authority of the juvenile court and having been adjudged delinquent. In their respective subsequent delinquency proceedings, the juvenile court, without the participation of the School District, ordered the School District to provide RM and BC with a free and appropriate education. In the juvenile court action, the ultimate goal of the specific order was to ensure that RM and BC received a free alternative education during the term of their respective expulsions. Instead of investigating other possible sources of authority for ordering a free and appropriate education from any available, appropriate source,3 the *879juvenile court relied instead solely upon its interpretation of a constitutional mandate upon the public school district.
[134] It has long been held that this Court will not determine constitutional questions when a decision can be based upon other grounds. Further, W.R.C.P. 52(d) states that "[nlo constitutional question shall be deemed to arise in an action unless, after all necessary special findings of fact and conclusions of law have been made by the court, a decision on the constitutional question is necessary to the rendition of final judgment." This Court has held that "it would be not only improper to decide the constitutional question sought to be presented on the brief and the reserved questions, but that this court is without jurisdiction to do so until it shall plainly appear that such decision is necessary to the disposition" of the case. State v. Kelley, 17 Wyo. 335, 344, 98 P. 886, 889 (Wyo.1909). Because the juvenile court never looked to its own authority or alternative resources available to it for its disposition of these students, the constitutional question is not appropriately before this Court for review.
[1385] Even if this Court were to accept the reserved question for review, I do not agree that this Court has the facts available to it to adequately analyze the reserved question. No adversarial proceedings were held below by which the legal and factual issues relevant to the reserved constitutional question were framed, argued and decided. The School District was not a party to the juvenile court actions when the juvenile court issued its respective orders. When the School District did intervene, it did not request a rehearing before the juvenile court. The School District simply requested the juvenile court reserve a constitutional question to this Court, which was done.
[136] The juvenile court thus was not presented with the legal and factual arguments from the School District. Because the issue was not properly joined and argued below, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the juvenile court are incomplete. There are no findings regarding a compelling state interest or narrowly tailored resolutions. The legal arguments presented by the School District in its brief upon review were never considered by the juvenile court. Factually, after intervention the School District submitted several affidavits containing factual assertions that it deems pertinent to the determination of the reserved question, yet these facts have never been examined by the juvenile court, either for accuracy or for applicability. The juvenile court had no information regarding the impact of the lack of education to expelled students on the expelled students, the main student body, the
*880school districts, the state, or anyone else potentially affected by both the policy and any potential alternatives. Such information is relevant to a determination of the nature of the government interest concerned and the appropriateness of the option chosen by the state to further that government interest.
[187] Because of the procedural posture of this case, for all practical purposes this Court is being asked to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. We are being asked to make the initial determination of the facts and the law necessary to the determination of the reserved question. Neither Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-13-101 nor W.R.C.P. 52(d) grant this Court jurisdiction to review a constitutional question prior to a full determination of the lower court of all necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. "It has consistently been the position of this court that even when constitutional questions are reserved, under statutory authority, the court will not consider them until all preliminary matters, including factual questions, are finally disposed of and there is nothing left to do but apply the answer to the constitutional question." Knudson v. Hilzer, 551 P.2d 680, 686 (Wyo.1976). See also State v. Rosachi, 549 P.2d 318 (Wyo.1976); Hanchey v. Steighner, 549 P.2d 1810 (Wyo.1976).
[188] Finally, I am concerned about deciding a question that is so patently moot. The expulsion of these students ended over a year ago. The principle of mootness applies even to issues of fundamental importance. See In re SNK, 2008 WY 141, 11 22, 28, 78 P.3d 1032, 11 22, 28 (Wyo.2003) (even though issue presented was important, the issue was not reviewed because of a finding that the issue was moot. "This court has clearly established that it will not make determinations which may be characterized as advisory, and this court will not digress from such a position unless extreme cireumstances demand.") Neither side has presented any argument in their respective briefs as to why this Court should not consider the question moot.
[139] I cannot say that the answer to the reserved constitutional question is necessary in the context of a juvenile court proceeding nor will the answer to the actual question reserved be anything but advisory at this time. See In re AJ, 786 P.2d 721, 728 (Wyo. 1987) ("The disposition of AJ and the efficacy of the order entered by the district court will continue without change regardless of the determination of the issues by this court. The case is moot and will not be considered because the judgment rendered cannot be carried into effect.") Most importantly, the answer to the question of constitutional law reserved would not be dispositive of the question of the authority of the juvenile court to order a public school district to provide expelled students adjudged delinquent with a free and appropriate education. Given the context and the procedural posture of this case, this Court should decline to review the reserved question.

. This answer raises its own questions, such as potential equal protection issues.

. By answering only a generic question, the majority opinion also leaves open the question of which governmental entity should be responsible for providing and paying for an alternative education, if such were to be ordered and provided to expelled students adjudged delinquent.

. For instance, there is no discussion of the authority of the juvenile court to order placement of the juveniles in a facility such as Cathedral Home or Normative Services where the juveniles would receive an education. Also, it could be argued that the juvenile court has the authority to order the School District to provide free and appropriate educational services to expelled students based upon the statutory and equitable powers possessed by the juvenile court granting it the flexibility to deal with the needs of juveniles. This judicially recognized and supported flexibility is best illustrated by the cases of In re NG, 14 P.3d 203 (Wyo.2000), and In Re DCP, 2001 WY 77, 30 P.3d 29 (Wyo.2001). In In re NG, a juvenile court ordered the Department of Family Services (DFS) to pay for electronic monitoring services provided to a juvenile. The services were provided to the juvenile while the juvenile was subject to a Child In Need Of Supervision (CHINS) action, but not pursuant to the CHINS action. The services had been ordered by the municipal court in a different case and were continued after the municipal court order had expired. Certainly there is no constitutional requirement that DFS provide such services. Despite that fact, and the fact that the services were never ordered as part of the CHINS proceeding, the NG Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court, citing the authority of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-403(a)@i):
(a) Coincident with proceedings concerning a minor alleged to be in need of supervision, the court has jurisdiction to:
[[Image here]]
(i) Order any party to the proceedings to perform any acts, duties and responsibilities the court deems necessary;. ...
In its reliance upon this statute, the NG Court emphasized that juvenile courts must have the authority to be flexible because "(ilt is not reasonable to expect the legislature to foresee every method that might be employed to assist a juvenile." NG, 14 P.3d at 205.
*879This Court again stressed the propriety of juvenile court flexibility in ordering services and payment for services in In re DCP. The DCP Court determined that DFS could be ordered to pay for an out of state placement of a child subject to a juvenile delinquency petition. The Court determined that, although specific statutes regarding requirements for out-of-state placements had not been strictly complied with, substantial adherence to the placement statutes was adequate because there were overriding interests to strict compliance. "In this case, we conclude there was a clear indication that the out-of-state placement effectuated the protection of public safety and provided for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of DCP. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-201(c)(@ii), (iii) (LexisNexis 2001)." DCP, 119.
Thus, in the instant case, whether or not the School District is required by the Wyoming Constitution to provide lawfully expelled students with an alternative education is irrelevant to the question of whether a juvenile court can order this School District to provide an alternative education to RM and BC. Even should we answer the constitutional question in the negative, the Juvenile Court arguably possesses other authority supporting such an order. The Juvenile Justice Act, at issue in this case, contains the same grant of flexible power to the juvenile court as the statute in In Re NG. The juvenile court can order any party to perform any act the court deems necessary. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-203(b)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003). Pursuant to the logic of this Court in In re DCP, the overriding factor in a delinquency case is to "effectuate[] the protection of public safety and provide{] for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of" RM and BC. DCP, Y 19.
This Court is not suggesting that we hereby decide that the juvenile court has the authority to order the School District to provide students with a free alternative and appropriate education. We only hold that the means sought-an answer to a reserved question of constitutional law-will have no dispositive effect in the underlying juvenile court proceedings. First and foremost, the propriety of this juvenile court order must be reviewed within the context of the Juvenile Justice Act.