|
Washington Supreme Court Number 78426-4 (Washington State Supreme Court 2006).
Three foster children in Washington State found to be dependent by the Yakima County juvenile court were held in contempt several times during 2004 for violating the court’s orders not to run away from their foster placements. To punish the youth for running away in violation of his dependency orders, the juvenile court commissioner sentenced the youth to serve time at the Yakima County Juvenile Detention Facility. The juvenile court’s contempt sanctions were imposed under the court’s “inherent contempt” authority. The terms of the sentences meted out by the juvenile court (one of the girls was sentenced to a jail term of 60 days) far exceeded the 7- day limit imposed under Washington State statutes on the amount of time a juvenile may be sent to detention as a sanction for violating a status offense order. The Department of Social and Health Services responsible for the care of the foster youth asked the juvenile court to hold the runaways in contempt.
Although they had already served their time in jail, the youth appealed the contempt orders issued by the juvenile court to Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals. The court of appeals upheld several of the contempt orders. The court of appeals determined that the juvenile court had the “inherent authority” to sentence foster youth who are chronic runaways to jail for any amount of time in excess of the 7-day limit imposed by statute, provided there is a “reasonable basis” for believing the longer sentence will achieve what a 7-day sentence will not. The attorney for the dependent youth petitioned the Washington State Supreme Court to review the decision of the court of appeals.
In an amici brief filed on May 1, 2006, the National Center for Youth Law, in collaboration with Columbia Legal Services, TeamChild, and the University of Washington School of Law Children and Youth Advocacy Clinic, joined the foster youth in their request to the Washington Supreme Court to accept review of this case and overturn the decision of the court of appeals. Amici urge the Court to review the decision of the court of appeals permitting dependency judges to use their “inherent contempt” authority to punish foster youth for running away and to circumvent the limits imposed on the use of detention as a contempt sanction for juveniles in violation of dependency or status offense orders. The amici brief reviews the social science research concerning why youth run from foster placements, with a particular focus on juvenile girls. It details why locking up runaways or other status offenders is ineffective and harmful and outlines alternative means of addressing the behavior. The brief shows that the orders of the dependency court upheld by the court of appeals are arbitrary and capricious in violation of due process and violate the separation of powers doctrine.
The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and Preston Gates, a Seattle law firm, also submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry urging the Washington Supreme Court to overturn the court of appeals affirmation of the dependency court’s use of inherent contempt authority to subject chronic runaways to prolonged periods of detention.
On October 11, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court accepted review of the court of appeals decision as urged by amici. Five Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the case should be reviewed, making this the only time a state’s highest court has reviewed the constitutionality of juvenile courts using their “inherent authority” to impose lengthy jail terms to punish foster youth who runaway from placements. Oral argument was heard on February, 13, 2007.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled on December 20, 2007, holding that the Yakima Juvenile Court Commissioner improperly used the court’s “inherent” contempt powers. In the ruling, the Supreme Court substantially limited the use of the controversial “inherent contempt” procedure, requiring that before a court utilizes its inherent contempt power to incarcerate a juvenile runaway it must find that “all less restrictive alternatives have failed.”
The opinion of the Supreme Court was authored by Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander. A concurring opinion, written by Justice Barbara Madsen, recognized that: “Detention should not be used as a substitute for access to basic services, treatment, and care.” In particular, the concurrence expressed concerns that using contempt proceedings to incarcerate juveniles is “often ineffective” and may in fact cause great harm to the child.
Counsel: Pat Arthur, NCYL; Beth Colgan, Casey Trupin, Columbia Legal Services; Anne Lee, Brent Pattison, TeamChild: Kim Ambrose, University of Washington School of Law Children and Youth Advocacy Clinic: Tammy Seltzer, Bazelon Center; K&L Gates.
Updated April 2, 2010
|
 | |
|
