Status Offenses

Class 7

Status Offenses and the Origins of the Juvenile Court

• The Court envisioned a broad reach to any form of juvenile misbehavior, not just criminal behavior?

• The court acted “for the state, as a parent,” to protect children who were abused or abandoned, living with “disreputable adults,” beggars, found gambling or drinking in saloons, wandering the streets (at night)

• Parenting children accused of criminal conduct was almost an afterthought in the original juvenile courts

• The court called children to account for any misbehavior, whether legal (if done by an adult) or illegal. It substituted for parents to correct the behavior of unruly children

What is a “Status Offense”?• Embedded in early Juvenile Court statutes• Acts that are wrong only because the actor is a minor

– “Incorrigibility” or unruly– “Indecent behavior” (lasciviousness, bad

associations)– Truancy– Running away from home– Prohibited conduct – sexual behavior, smoking or

drinking

• Social class dynamics• More problem-behavior – cultural – focus in

recent decades

Supreme Court Rationale

• Bellotti v Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)– ‘Peculiar vulnerability of children’– Children’s inability to crucial decisions in an

informed manner (competence? Immaturity?)– Importance of parental role in child rearing

Juvenile Court Responses to Status Offenders

• Gender dynamics – see, Hagan, “Power Control Theory” -- thread from “immorality” to pregnancy, girls were often detained

• Detention as “front end” punishment, largely unregulated both in its use and its conditions for several decades

• Conflict with diversionary theory of juvenile court • Court ordered restrictions on freedom of

movement• Violation of “valid court order” is delinquency,

subject to full force of juvenile court sanctions and interventions

Typical Statutes

• California W&I Code §601– Minors habitually disobedient or truant– Runaways– Petty offenses – misdemeanors, mostly– Alcohol, controlled substances

• Ohio Stat. §2151.022– Unruly behavior – defiance of parental control– Truant– Self-endangerment, moral hazard– Visit disreputable places

Modern Reforms• Tied to rights movements in 1960s

– Context of constitutional activism and change in juvenile court setting (Gault, Kent) challenged wisdom and fairness of procedural informality

– Skepticism about efficacy of rehabilitation generally

• Segregation of “status offenders” from other juvenile offenders in detention and correctional placements

• Influence of “labeling theory” or secondary deviance on reforms

• Ties to victim rights movements – runaways and child prostitutes seen as victims of violence in families and other family pathologies or inadequacies – shift of legal attention to sanctions on parents

• Increasing use of mental health placements to circumvent prohibition of ‘status offenders’ in the juvenile court

• Theoretical tension between control of children and fostering developmental progress toward “autonomy”– Tension between parent and child over autonomy and

rights– Tensions between parent and state when parents alocate

rights to children that the state might not (e.g., Ramos v Town of Vernon ordinance)

• Missing children as animator of popular concerns about need for stronger public protection of children

• S.S. and L.B. v. State (299 A.2d.560 (Me.1973))– Due process guarantees cannot be equated with

vagueness concerns– Rejection of some aspects of Gault? Due

process not required here despite possibility of loss of liberty

– “These standards are not vague when applied to this class”

Cases

• E.S.G. v. State (447 S.W.2d (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1969)) – Facts (female)– Confined indefinitely in state correctional agency

to age 21– Vague standard? Child-specific standard of

conduct (concern for health and morals of child is heart of statute)

– Rights of child are protected by careful mapping of alleged conduct to the danger to health and morals

Legislation JJDPA (42 U.S.C. 5601)

• The Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 mandated that states receiving any federal (JJDP) funds are shall comply with three specific requirements contained in the Act:

• Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)– Status offenders may not be held in secure detention or confinement.

(Status offenses are non-criminal offenses that only apply to children under 18, such as skipping school, running away, and breaking curfew.) There are several exceptions to this rule that allow for temporary confinement for up to 24 hours.

– This provision seeks to ensure that status offenders who have committed no criminal offenses are not placed in jails and prisons, including adult jails and prisons, for extended periods of time. These children need community responses – including alternative schools, residential homes, counseling, mentors, and jobs – not jail.

• Separation– Children may not have any type of contact with adult offenders in

confinement. This prohibition includes both "sight" and "sound" contact.

– This provision protects children from abuse - physical and verbal - and physical assault. Under this provision, children can not be put in adjoining cells with adults, or placed in circumstances that allow them to be subject to threats and verbal abuse from adults in dining halls, recreation areas, and other common spaces.

• Removal– Children may not be detained in adult jails and prisons, except for limited

times before or after a court hearing (6 hours), in rural areas (24 hours plus weekends and holidays), and in unsafe travel conditions (24 hours.)

– This provision protects children from abuse – physical and verbal – and physical assault because children housed in adult prisons are 8 times more likely to commit suicide; 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted; 2 times more likely to be assaulted by staff; and 50% more likely to be attacked with a weapon compared to children in juvenile facilities.

Female Commitment Rates in Public and Private Facilities per 100,000 by Reason for Committment

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Year

Rat

e pe

r 10

0,00

0 Fe

mal

es

DelinquentStatus OffenderDependent, Neglected or AbusedEm otionally Dis turbed or Mentally RetardedOtherVoluntarily Com m itted

Curfews, Loitering, and Other Side Doors into Status Offenses

• Bellotti v Baird logic• Reassertion of Status Offense Logic as

Crime Control– Ramos v. City of Vernon– Morales (reconfigured), People v. Acura– Parental liability statutes

• Empowerment of parents to use law as auxiliary for parental authority

The Hooky Party!

• State – school – parent relationship ?

• Limits of state authority on behavior ?

• Health concern covered under current caselaw ?

• ACLU suit