The Adjudication Function Introduction The standards in this chapter address the jurisdiction and organization of the court having matters relating to juveniles, the rights of the parties in delinquency, noncriminal misbehavior, neglect and abuse proceedings, and the criteria and procedures applicable to intake, detention, and dispositional decisions. The first series of Standards, 3.11-3.118, recommends establishment of a family court with jurisdiction over all matters affecting juveniles and their families other than tort, contractual, and probate questions. Detailed definitions of the family court's jurisdiction over delinquency, neglect and abuse, and noncriminal misbehavior are offered. With regard to noncriminal misbehavior, Standard 3.112 urges that the court should exercise its authority only when all appropriate noncoercive alternatives have been exhausted. Subsequent standards make clear that if noncriminal misbehavior is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, both the family and the relevant service agencies as well as the juvenile should be involved in developing an appropriate disposition and should be subject to the court's dispositional authority. At no time under these standards would placement in a detention or a correctional facility of a juvenile alleged or found to have engaged in noncriminal misbehavior be sanctioned. As for neglect and abuse, Standard 3.113 emphasizes that judicial intervention should occur only when a child's health is impaired or demonstrably threatened, and not when there is merely disagreement with the parent's values, life style, or words. A further explanation of the terms of and reasoning underlying these recommendations is contained in the commentary to these standards. Other issues addressed in the 3.11 series include the scope of federal delinquency jurisdiction, transfers of cases from the jurisdiction of the family court, and the maximum and minimum ages at which juveniles are subject to the family court's jurisdiction over delinquency and noncriminal misbehavior. The provisions in the 3.12 series cover the relationship of the family court to other courts, the tenure and qualifications of family court judges, and the employment of referees and court administrators. They urge, inter alia, that the family court should be a decision of the highest court of general jurisdiction, and that ordinarily, an assignment of a judge to the family court be limited to two consecutive two-year terms. The third series of standards in this chapter delineate the right to and the role of counsel for the state, the juvenile, and the juvenile's parents in family court proceedings. When adopted, these provisions-together with those in the 3.16, 3.17 and 3.19 series-would provide each party in delinquency and noncriminal misbehavior proceedings with the rights afforded juveniles under In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 518 (1975), plus those due defendants in criminal proceedings other than the rights to indictment by a grand jury, trial by jury, and money bail. The same rights apply in neglect and abuse proceedings except that the level of proof required for a finding of abuse or neglect is clear and convincing evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The fundamental interests at stake in delinquency, noncriminal misbehavior, and neglect and abuse proceedings, warrant the extension of the full state of due process safeguards. These series of standards also suggest the time limits which should apply in family court proceedings, outline the role of guardians ad litem, and urge that a ban be placed on pleabargaining in delinquency, noncriminal misbehavior, and neglect and abuse cases. Like the standards in the chapter on the Intervention Function, the 3.14 and 3.15 series distinguish between the decision to recommend initiation of formal court proceedings and the decision on whether the juvenile should be detained or held in emergency protective custody. Standards 3.141-3.147 outline the organization of intake units, the qualifications of intake officers, and the procedures, alternatives, and procedures applicable to intake investigations and decisions. Standards 3.151-3.158 examine the bases for improving pre-adjudication restraints on a juvenile's liberty and recommend stringent judicial review of all restraints imposed. Placement of juveniles alleged to have committed a delinquent act in secure facilities is limited to a set of closely defined situations. Placement of juveniles alleged to have engaged in noncriminal misbehavior or have been neglected or abused in detention facilities would be totally prohibited under these standards as would placement of any juvenile in a facility on which he/she would come into contact with adults alleged or found to have committed a crime. See 42 U.S.C. §§5633(a)(12) and (13) (Supp. 1979). The standards on disposition, 3.181-3.1813 set forth the procedures and criteria which the family court should follow in making dispositional decisions and describe the procedures for review, modification, and enforcement of dispositional orders. While the criteria are intended to channel the current open discretion enjoyed by juvenile and family court judges in many jurisdictions, they provide the court with greater authority over the supervisory programs and services to be provided. The final standard in this chapter discusses the rights to which juveniles should be entitled in adjudicatory type proceedings before administrative, correctional, and educational agencies. The standard is intended to assure that basic safeguards are present whenever the juvenile is threatened by a government agency with the substantial abridgement of a fundamental right, the curtailment of an enertial benefit or the imposition of sanctions. It is anticipated that the standards in this chapter, if implemented, will provide for greater equity, consistency and fairness in proceedings affecting juveniles, a more efficient and respected court, and a stronger, more effective system of justice for juveniles, their families, and the public. 3.1 The Courts 3.11 Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over matters relating to juveniles should be placed in a family court. The family court should have exclusive original jurisdiction over matters relating to delinquency as specified in Standard 3.111; noncriminal misbehavior as specified in Standard 3.112; neglect or abuse of juveniles as specified in Standard 3.113; adoptions and terminations of parental rights; appointment of a legal guardian for juveniles; admission for services for the mentally ill or mentally retarded persons and persons addicted to alcohol or narcotic drugs; the interstate compacts on juveniles and on the placement of children; divorce; separation; annulment; alimony; custody and support of children; paternity; and the uniform, reciprocal enforcement of support act; as well as intra-family criminal offenses and contributing to the delinquency of a minor as specified in Standard 3.117. Sources: National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standard 8.2 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Institute of Judicial Administration/ American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards and Goals, Standards Relating to Court Organization and Administration, Alternative Standard (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Court Organization]; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Model Act for Family Courts, Sections 7, 10 (1975). Commentary This standard endorses the formation of a family court with jurisdiction over most matters affecting juveniles and families. Several states (including Delaware, Hawaii, New York, and Rhode Island), the District of Columbia, and a number of counties have adopted the family court model, although the scope of jurisdiction varies significantly. The remaining states rely on the traditional juvenile court structure with jurisdiction limited primarily to delinquency, noncriminal misbehavior, neglect, abuse, adoption, and the Interstate Compacts on Juveniles and on the Placement of Juveniles. As noted in the introduction to the Task Force's chapter on court structure: Today's reality in the overwhelming majority of states is that families beset with legal problems are dealt with by different courts or court divisions, different judges, and different probation personnel. Even lawyers are sometimes uncertain as to the particular forum where an action should be initiated. Characteristically the child's delinquency is heard in one court, his parent's divorce in a second court, a family member's mental illness commitment proceedings in still a different court, and an assault between two members of his family in yet another court. Typically there is no systematic provision for different judges to learn of the related cases which have involved this family. Information which is important to developing carefully crafted decisions is frequently unavailable to the decision maker. Further, there may be organizationally separate juvenile probation, felony probation, misdemeanor probation, court domestic relations counselors, and a variety of social service personnel, all operative with this family in an uncoordinated fashion. It is anticipated that the family court structure will allow a more consistent approach to the solution of legally-related family problems and eliminate many of the artificial jurisdictional and administrative barriers that have developed. The scope of jurisdiction recommended in the standard is substantially the same as that proposed by the Report of the Task Force, supra, and, with one major exception, parallels the position adopted by the IJA/ABA, Court Organization, supra, and the Model Act for Family Courts, supra. That exception is the inclusion of jurisdiction over noncriminal misbehavior. A definition of this jurisdiction appears in Standard 3.112. Explanations of the jurisdiction over delinquency, neglect and abuse, intra-family offenses, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are presented in Standards 3.111, 3.113, and 3.117, respectively. Like the source materials, this standard recommends that the family court handle commitment or admission to services proceedings involving adults as well as juveniles. This is premised upon the major impact on a family when a parent is placed in or returned from a residential facility because of mental illness, or alcohol or drug addiction, and the need for ancillary services in many cases in which out-patient treatment is ordered. There will, of course, be some commitment proceedings involving individuals who do not have a family. However, the additional burden imposed by these cases is not anticipated to be significant enough to warrant splitting the jurisdiction over commitments. Although it is anticipated that the family structure will be a more efficient as well as more effective way of dealing with family legal problems, the expansion of juvenile court jurisdiction must be accompanied by a concomitant expansion |