custody and the adjudication hearing is set at a maximum of eighteen calendar days. In noncustody cases, the total time from filing the complaint to adjudication is set at a maximum of sixty-five days. It is anticipated that efficient management of the family court and other juvenile justice agencies will make complaince with the standard possible. See, e.g., Standard 3.125. However, Standard 3.162 does recommend limited grounds for extensions as well as the periods that should be excluded from the computation of the time limits. The reasons underlying the time limits for intake decisions-paragraph (a)—are discussed in the Commentary to Standard 3.142. The time limits for hearings to review detention decisions or decisions to place a juvenile alleged to be neglected or abused in emergency custody paragraph (b)—are discussed in Standards 3.155 and 3.157, respectively. Standard 3.158 sets a seven-day limit on subsequent review hearings if detention or emergency custody is continued. Paragraphs (c) and (d) prescribe the time within which the petition must be filed following submission of the report containing the intake officer's recommendation, see Standard 3.147, or resubmission of a dismissed complaint by the complainant. See Standards 3.147 and 3.163. Under paragraph (e), the arraignment proceeding should be held within five days of the filing of the petition. In cases in which the juvenile is detained or in emergency custody, it is anticipated that the arraignment will be combined with the weekly custody review hearing. See Standards 3.158 and 3.166. In noncustody cases, the arraignment can be combined with the hearing to determine probable cause if such a hearing has been requested and there is sufficient time for the parties to prepare. See Standard 3.165. If the time limits are exceeded and no extension has been granted and none of the exclusions are applicable, the standard recommends that one or more of four types of sanctions be applied. If a juvenile subject to the jurisdiction of the family court over delinquency or noncriminal misbehavor is detained and the time limit provisions are violated, he/she should be released, thereby making applicable the somewhat longer time periods for noncustody cases. If those time limits are then violated, the case should be dismissed. In determining whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudicei.e., whether or not the case may be refiled-the judge should consider such factors as the seriousness of the offense, the facts and circumstances leading to the dismissal, the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice, the length of the delay, and the prejudice, if any, to the respondent. See Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162 (Supp. 1979). Because all participants in the juvenile justice process should share the burden and responsibility of assuring that a case is handled as speedily and fairly as possible, the standard provides further that juvenile justice personnel, including attorneys, who cause unnecessary delay should be subject to sanctions. However, when the reason for delay is lack of sufficient resources rather than individual failures, the family court should make this fact known. Purpose and Criteria for Detention and Conditioned Facilities 3.152 Criteria for Detention in Secure Misbehavior 3.154 Criteria and Procedures for Imposition of Protective Measures in Neglect and Abuse Cases The 15/30-day limit on the period between the filing of the petition and the adjudication hearing-paragraph (f)-adopts the position approved by the IJA/ABA, Interim Status, supra. The Report of the Task Force, supra contains a 20/60- 3.153 Criteria for Detention and Release-Noncriminal day limit. However, paragraph (g), like the Task Force provision, recommends that disposition hearings be held within fifteen days after adjudication, whether or not the juvenile is in custody. See Standard 3.188; cf. IJA/ABA, Interim Status, supra-fifteen days custody/thirty days noncustody. Paragraphs (h)-(j) endorse the time limits proposed by the Report of the Task Force, supra for matters taken under advisement by the family court, see Standard 3.168, and on appellate court decisions during the course of and following the adjudicatory hearing. See Standards 3.191 and 3.192. 3.155 Initial Review of Detention Decisions 3.162 Extension and Computation of Case Processing Time Limits 3.166 Arraignment Procedures 3.162 Extension and Computation of Case Processing Time Limits Extensions of the time limits set forth in these standards should be authorized when: a. The attorney for the state certifies that a witness essential to the state's case or other essential evidence will be unavailable during the prescribed period; or b. A continuance is requested by any party and the judge finds that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the other parties in a speedy resolution of the case. Such extensions should not exceed thirty calendar days when the subject of the complaint, the respondent to a petition, or a juvenile alleged to have been neglected or abused is in custody and should not exceed sixty calendar days in noncustody cases. Any period of delay caused by the absence, incompetency, or physical incapacity of the respondent; consideration of a motion for change of venue, a motion for transfer to a court of general jurisdiction pursuant to Standard 3.116, or an extradiction request; a diagnostic examination ordered by the family court and completed within the time specified in the order; or an interlocutory appeal; and a reasonable period of delay caused by joinder of the case with that of another person for whom the time limits have not expired, should not be included in the computation of the prescribed time periods. Sources: See generally Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Interim Status, Standard 7.10 (tentative draft, 1977); see also Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h) (Supp. 1979). Commentary In seeking to limit the possibilities for delay while providing sufficient leeway for special problems that may arise in individual cases, the standard provides two sets of exceptions to the time limits proposed in these standards. The first exception is for continuances sought by the state because of the unavailability of a key witness or evidence as sought by any party in the interests of justice. The length of such continuances are limited to no more than thirty days when the subject of a delinquency or noncriminal misbehavior complaint, or the respondent to a delinquency or noncriminal misbehavior petition is detained, or when a juvenile alleged to have been neglected or abused is held in emergency custody, and no more than sixty days in nondetention and nonemergency custody cases. Similar limits should be imposed on extensions of the time for processing and deciding an appeal. The term "unavailable" in intended to denote situations in which the presence of a witness cannot be secured "by due diligence" or a witness resists "appearing or being returned" for a hearing. See 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h) (3) (B) (Supp. 1976). Under the standard, general court congestion, lack of diligent preparation by counsel, or failure to obtain an available witness are not grounds for granting a continuance. Id., at Section 3161(h) (8) (c). Similarly, because of the potential for abuse and for circumvention of the policy favoring adjudication of delinquency, noncriminal misbehavior, and neglect and abuse matters as expeditiously as possible, the standard is intended to discourage stipulated continuances. The second exception excludes from the case processing time periods set forth in Standard 3.161, delays caused by the absence, incompetency or physical incapacity of the subject of the proceedings, diagnostic examinations, joinder with a related case, and certain procedural matters that may obviate the need for further proceedings. Related Standards 3.161 Case Processing Time Limits 3.1810 Enforcement of Dispositional Orders-Delinquency 3.1811 Enforcement of Dispositional Orders-Noncriminal Misbehavior 3.1813 Enforcement of Dispositional Orders-Neglect and Abuse 3.163 Decision to File a Petition All petitions should be prepared and filed by the family court section of the prosecutor's office and signed by the attorney in charge of that section. A petition should not be filed unless it is determined that the allegations contained in the complaint are legally sufficient. If the allegations are not legally sufficient, the complaint should be dismissed. When a complainant resubmits a complaint dismissed by the intake officer, an attorney from the family court section of the prosecutor's office should consider the facts presented by the complainant, consult with the intake officer who made the initial decision, and then make the final determination as to whether a petition should be filed. This determination should be made as expeditiously as possible and in no event more than thirty calendar days after the complaint has been resubmitted. Sources: See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standard 15.13 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]. Commentary This standard recommends that the responsibility for submitting a delinquency, noncriminal misbehavior, or neglect and abuse case to the family court for adjudication be vested in the attorney in charge of the family court section of the prosecutor's office. However, unlike the provisions proposed by the Report of the Task Force, supra, and the Model Act for Family Courts, the standard limits review of the intake officer's recommendation to file a petition to a determination of legal sufficiency. See Report of the Task Force, supra; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Model Act for Family Courts, Section 13 (1975). This practice assigns to the intake officer and to the prosecutor, respectively, the decision most appropriate to their training and experience. Under Standards 3.141-3.147, the intake officer determines whether, on the basis of the nature of the allegations and the juvenile's age and maturity, the prior contacts with the intake unit and family court that the juvenile and in noncriminal misbehavior and neglect and abuse cases, the juvenile's family-has had, the results of those contacts, and the availability of appropriate services outside. the juvenile justice system, it is in the interest of the juvenile, the family, and the community to dismiss the complaint; refer the juvenile and/or his/her parents, guardian, or primary caretaker for services; or recommend that a petition be filed. The prosecutor must then determine whether the facts alleged are sufficient to establish jurisdiction and whether there is a competent and credible evidence available to support the allegations. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 15.13. The standards approved by the IJA/ABA Joint Commission recommend that in delinquency proceedings, the prosecutor should decide whether it is appropriate to file a petition, but in other types of proceedings, the intake officer should make this decision. See Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commisson on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, Standards 4.1-4.4 (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Prosecution Function]. Implementation of the recommendations in the standard will expand the role and responsibility of the prosecutor in many jurisdictions. A 1972 survey of sixty-eight American cities found that in only 11.8 percent of the cities surveyed did the prosecutor have authority to file a petition; in only 36.8 percent was the petition reviewed by the prosecutor for legal sufficiency; and in only 8.8 percent was the prosecutor required to sign the petition. Boston University Center for Criminal Justice, Prosecution in the Juvenile Courts: Guidance for the Future, Appendix B (1973). The standard does recommend a broader prosecutorial review when a complainant resubmits a complaint dismissed by the intake officer. See Standard 3.147. In such cases, an attorney from the family court section of the prosecutor's office should discuss the matter with both the complainant and the intake officer, undertake whatever additional investigation may be necessary, and make the final decision. No provision is made for the complainant to appeal this decision to the family court or to file a petition without the signature of the chief attorney for the family court section of the prosecutor's office. See IJA/ABA, Prosecution Function, supra; but see Report of the Task Force, supra. Standard 3.161 recommends that the review of the legal sufficiency of complaints and the preparation and filing of the petition be completed within two days (excluding weekends and holidays) when the subject of the complaint is detained or when a juvenile alleged to have been neglected or abused is in emergency custody, and within five days (excluding weekends and holidays) in nondetention or noncustody cases. This allows some time to carry out any investigation that may be deemed necessary and draft the pleadings, without unduly delaying the case. A thirty day limit is placed on the time that may be taken to consider the resubmission of a dismissed complaint. This is comparable to the time given to the intake officer to make the initial decision regarding the complaint when the juvenile is not detained or placed in emergency custody. No specific time constraints are imposed on the complainant's decision to resubmit the complaint. However, the relevant statute of limitations, the maximum jurisdictional ages recommended in Standard 3.115, and, when applicable, the right of the subject of the complaint to a speedy trial, provide some protection against unreasonable delay. 3.164 Petition and The petition should set forth with particularity all factual and Commentary a. The name and address of the respondent; b. The date, time, manner, and place of the conduct alleged d. A citation to the legal provisions relied upon for e. The types of dispositions to which the respondent could be subjected. In addition, if the respondent is a juvenile, the petition should include the name and address of the juvenile's parents, guardian, or primary caretaker. If the respondent is not detained, a summons should be issued directing the respondent to appear before the family court at a specified time and place for arraignment; describing the nature and function of the arraignment proceeding; and advising the respondent of his/her legal rights. If the respondent is detained, a notice containing the information included in a summons should be attached to the petition, and an order should be issued directing that the respondent be brought before the court at the specified time and place. A copy of the petition together with the summons or notice should be served on the respondent and any other persons who are necessary or proper parties to the proceedings. In addition, a copy of the petition and summons or notice should be sent to the attorney for each of the parties, and if the respondent is a juvenile, the respondent's parents, guardian, or primary caretaker. Source: Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Pretrial Court Proceedings, Standards 1.2 and 1.3 (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Pretrial Court Proceedings]. The standard sets forth the information to be included in the petition and summons. The purpose of the petition is to provide respondents—i.e., juveniles accused in the petition of committing a delinquent offense or engaging in noncriminal misbehavior, or adults accused in the petition of neglecting or abusing a child or misusing their parental authority—with sufficient notice of the charges to be able to prepare for trial. Such notice is mandated in delinquency proceedings by In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). The petition also provides a record of the allegations to protect against double jeopardy. The standard recommends that the petition should clearly describe the nature of the conduct that triggered the proceedings and the date, time, and place at which it occurred. It recommends further that the petition should also include other factual allegations necessary to establish jurisdiction-e.g., the juvenile's age at the time of the offense, and in noncriminal misbehavior cases, that all noncoercive alternatives have been exhausted. The citations to the statutory provisions on which the proceeding is based are intended to clarify the type of jurisdiction sought and to enable the respondent to identify the points that must be proven at the adjudication hearing. Information regarding the types of dispositions available is included to make clear to the respondent the seriousness of the proceedings. The name and address of the parents, guardian, or primary caretaker of a juvenile subject to the jurisdiction of the family court are included in the petition because the family, even in delinquency proceedings, may be called upon to play a major role in the disposition should the allegations be proven. See Standards 3.133, 3.183, 3.184, and 3.188. The summons should specify the time and address at which the person named in the petition should appear before the family court for arraignment, what will take place at the arraignment proceeding, see Standard 3.166, and the legal rights to which the respondent is entitled, See Standard 3.171; cf. Standard 2.234. In order to assure that juveniles who are detained have the same information as those who are not detained, the standard provides that they should receive a notice in lieu of the summons which contains information identical to that included in the summons. The standard provides that the petition and summons or notice should be served on the respondent, the respondent's attorney, and if the respondent is a juvenile, his/her parents. It recommends further that a copy of these items should be |