In re MB
| Decision Date | 10 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 41532-8-I, No. 42778-4-I, No. 42952-3-I, No. 42923-0-I, No. 42773-3-I., No. 43014-9-I |
| Citation | 3 P.3d 780,101 Wash.App. 425 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the Interests of M.B., J.B., R.H., C.W., D.M., and R.T. |
Anne Kysar, Neil Martin Fox, Linda Lillevik, Seattle, for Appellant in No. 41532-B-1.
Kenneth Fred Bromet, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae (Parents) in Nos. 41532-8-1, 43014-9-1, 42778-4-1, 42952-3-1, 42923-0-1, and 42773-3-1.
Anne Kysar, Seattle, for Appellant in No. 43014-9-1.
Shannon Dale Anderson, King Co. Pros. Office, Seattle, for Respondent in #43014-9-1.
Gregory Charles Link, Seattle, for Appellant in No. 42778-4-1.
Catherine Ann Chaney, Seattle, for Appellant in Nos. 42952-3-1, 42923-0-1 and 42773-3-1.
These six cases raise challenging issues of daily significance in juvenile courts across the state: What are the source and scope of a court's contempt powers in juvenile status offense cases, and what procedure is required in such proceedings?
It is axiomatic that a court must be able to enforce its orders. It is equally clear that the requirements of due process must be honored. The juvenile contempt statutes provide that commitment to detention for determinate periods of time is a "remedial" sanction. Read literally, this contravenes the Constitution. We hold, however, that the powers conferred by the statutes can be constitutionally exercised so long as courts ensure due process safeguards are in place. The statutes are therefore the first source of the court's contempt powers, and the juvenile court may not exercise inherent contempt powers unless the statutory powers are clearly inadequate. We also hold that the rules of evidence apply, and witnesses must be sworn. Finally, we examine the actions taken in each case to discern whether the orders met these requirements, reaching varying results.
This opinion addresses six linked appeals. Each case involves a youth who was either a child in need of services (CHINS), an at-risk youth (ARY), or a truant.1 Each of these youths was found in contempt for failing to abide by a court order, was ordered detained, and was provided with a means to purge the contempt. In four of the cases, the court required the youths to purge their contempts by writing papers of a specified length explaining how they planned to comply with the court order each had violated. In another case, the youth was required to enroll in, and be accepted by, an inpatient substance abuse program. One youth was not released until DSHS found a therapeutic foster care placement for her.
The facts of each case will be set forth with more specificity below. In general, however, these appeals raise the following issues. First, the 1998 amendments to the Becca Bill, which labeled as "remedial" all detention sanctions for violations of CHINS, ARY, and truancy orders, are challenged as violative of due process. Second, the purge conditions in each of the cases are challenged because the child contemnors were required to perform acts not required by the original court order. The youths argue that a purge condition can require nothing beyond compliance with the original order, and that the imposition of an additional burden renders a purge condition punitive. Finally, one youth contends that a juvenile court may not base its contempt finding on inadmissible hearsay or unsworn testimony.2
The issues presented are technically moot. Each of the juveniles has either served or purged the detention time imposed. Nevertheless, we may decide a moot case if it involves a matter of continuing and substantial public interest.3 In determining whether an issue involves a substantial public interest, we consider the public or private nature of the question presented, the need for an authoritative determination that will provide future guidance to public officers, and the likelihood the question will recur.4
These six cases meet these criteria. The public nature of the issues and their frequency of recurrence are evident. Our resolution will affect the nature and process by which courts impose contempt sanctions on children who violate CHINS, ARY, and truancy orders. In addition, the constitutional due process issues raised by the 1998 amendments to the Becca Bill indicate the need for clarification of the distinction between civil and criminal contempt. These are matters of substantial and continuing public interest, and we therefore review the merits.
Each of the youths is represented by counsel on appeal. Their parents, who are the respondents in five of the six cases,5 are not represented and filed no response. Because the use of contempt to enforce CHINS, ARY, and truancy orders raises issues of substantial public interest, we appointed amicus curiae to address the general interests of parents and thereby ensure an equitable review of the issues raised on appeal.
In 1995, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Becca Bill to empower parents with the necessary means to raise their at-risk children.6 The Becca Bill was named after Rebecca "Becca" Hedman, a troubled child who frequently ran away to a life on the streets of Spokane, where she was involved with drugs and prostitution. She was 13 years old when she was murdered by a 35-year-old prostitution client. At the time, Becca's parents believed she was safe in a residential drug counseling program, and were unaware she had run away from the clinic five times.7 The legislature recognized Becca's plight as representative of that of other at-risk youth across the state, and acknowledged parents' cries for greater authority over their children:
The Becca Bill governs juveniles who are known as "status offenders." Status offenders are youths who are before the court because their behavior endangers their welfare.9 They include runaways, at-risk youths, truants, and juveniles in need of mental health and substance abuse treatment.10 Each of the six youths here entered the juvenile court system either as a CHINS, an ARY, or a truant.
RCW 13.32A.030(4) defines "child in need of services."11 CHINS petitions may be filed by the child, a parent, or the State.12 When a CHINS petition is granted, the court may order the child to reside in out-of-home placement.13 RCW 13.32A.030(2) defines "at-risk youth."14 ARY petitions may be filed only by a parent.15 When an ARY petition is granted, the court generally orders the child to reside in the home.16
Once a child is adjudicated an ARY or CHINS, the court enters a dispositional order to "assist the parent in maintaining the care, custody, and control of the child" and assist the family with resolving family conflicts.17 The statute authorizes the court to set conditions of supervision for the child and parent, including requirements that the child attend school regularly, obtain counseling, participate in substance abuse or mental health treatment, and report regularly to DSHS.18 The court may also order "[a]ny other condition the court deems ... appropriate."19 Conditions commonly imposed under this section include requirements to obey a curfew, avoid drugs or alcohol, refrain from smoking, submit to random urinalyses, and refrain from physical or verbal abuse. Parents can be required to enroll in counseling or "any other services for the child requiring parental participation."20 Thus, parents are often ordered to refrain from physical or verbal abuse, or ensure that the child is enrolled in school.
Failure to comply with a dispositional order by either parent or child can lead to a finding of contempt,21 and the court must so advise both parent(s) and child at all CHINS and ARY proceedings.22 If the child is found to be in contempt, the court may impose a fine of up to $100 and/or confine the child for up to seven days.23 A child may be confined only in a secure juvenile detention facility.24
The Becca Bill also required steps to reduce or eliminate school absences. School districts are required to file a truancy petition when: (1) the child has five or more unexcused absences25 within any month during the current school year or ten or more unexcused absences in the current school year; (2) actions taken by the school district have been unsuccessful in substantially reducing the child's absences from school; and (3) court intervention and supervision are necessary to assist the school district or parent to reduce the child's absences from school.26 If the court grants the petition, it will assume jurisdiction over the child for the period of time most likely to result in the child returning to and remaining in school.27 If the child fails to abide by the court's order to attend school, the court can find the child in contempt and impose detention or community service.28
Following passage of the Becca Bill, Washington saw a marked increase in the number of petitions filed and the frequency of contempt violations and sanctions. During the second year following the bill's enactment, the number of ARY petitions increased nearly 500 percent, from 393 in 1994 to 1,936 in 1997. The number of truancy petitions increased from 91 to 15,627.29 At the same time, courts increasingly imposed detention for failure to comply with ARY, CHINS, and truancy orders. From 1993 to 1997, the number of detention orders in these cases increased by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v Medicine Bird Black Bear White Eagle
...1999); Ciba-Geigy Ltd., BASF A.G. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 683 So. 2d 522, 523 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); In re Interests of M.B., 3 P.3d 780, 785 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). An amicus can assist the court by (1) providing adversarial presentations when neither side is represented, (2) providing ......
-
In re Dependency of A.K., 23018-0-III.
...detention remains coercive and remedial if the contemnor can purge the contempt and obtain release. In re Interests of M.B., 101 Wash.App. 425, 439, 3 P.3d 780 (2000). The opportunity to purge effectively places the keys of the prison in the contemnor's pocket. Id. On the other hand, a dete......
-
In re Dependency of A.K., 78426-4.
...the public has a great interest in the care of children and the workings of the foster care system. See, e.g., In re Interest of M.B., 101 Wash.App. 425, 433, 3 P.3d 780 (2000). The authority of the courts is similarly a public matter. In re Cross, 99 Wash.2d 373, 377, 662 P.2d 828 (1983). ......
-
River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, P.S.
...whether it properly denies a motion to compel arbitration are both questions of law that we review de novo. See In re Interests of M.B., 101 Wash.App. 425, 454, 3 P.3d 780 (2000), review denied, 142 Wash.2d 1027, 21 P.3d 1149 (2001); Otis Housing Ass'n, Inc. v. Ha, 165 Wash.2d 582, 586, 201......
-
Towards an Institutional Challenge of Imprisonment for Legal Financial Obligation Nonpayment in Washington State
...117 Wash. App. 602, 604-05, 610, 72 P.3d 780, 780-81, 783 (2003). 291. Id. at 606, 82 P.3d at 781 (citing In re Interests of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425, 439, 3 P.3d 780 (2000) ("A coercive sanction is justified only on the theory that it will induce a specific act that the court has the right......
-
§ 4.3 Superior Court Decisions that May Be Appealed
...(3); Silva, 166 Wn.2d at 141. Some contempt proceedings have both civil and criminal characteristics. In re M.B., 101 Wn. App. 425, 438, 3 P.3d 780 (2000), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1027 RCW 7.21 defines contempt procedures. Under the predecessor statute, a contempt judgment entered pursuant......
-
§67.04 General Civil Contempt
...unreliable, the court can insist on more than mere words or promise as a means of purging contempt." In re M.B., 101 Wn. App. 425, 448, 3 P.3d 780 (2000), review denied sub nom. In re Hansen, 142 Wn.2d 1027 (2001). [4] Sanctions In determining whether the sanction requested in a particular ......
-
Table of Cases
...of, 195 Wn.2d 859, 467 P.3d 969 (2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.01; 59.04[2][b]; 59.06 M.B., In the Interest of, 101 Wn. App. 425, 3 P.3d 780 (2000) . . . . . . 67.04[3][b][iv], [4][a], [6]; 67.06 M.C., State v., 148 Wn. App. 968, 201 P.3d 413 (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......