Napier, In re, 47260
Citation | 532 P.2d 423 |
Decision Date | 18 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 47260,47260 |
Parties | In the Matter of NAPIER, Valerie Marie and Vienna Louise, children under eighteen (18) years of age, to-wit 16 and 16 years. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Art Fleck, Jr., Public Defender, Juvenile Div., Tulsa, for appellants.
Terry Malloy, Legal Intern, Dist. Atty., Juvenile Div., Tulsa District Court, Tulsa, for appellee.
This is an appeal from trial court's order finding appellants to be children in need of supervision within 10 O.S.Supp.1974, § 1101(c) and committing them to custody of Vianney School for Girls. The sole issue presented concerns constitutionality of provisions of 10 O.S.1971 § 1101 et seq., which concern children in need of supervision.
Section 1101(1) provides:
'The term 'child in need of supervision' means a child who is habitually truant from school, or who is beyond the control of his parents, guardian or other custodian, or who habitually deports himself so as to injure or endanger the health or morals of himself or others.'
Sections 1103--1113 provide procedures to be followed in juvenile hearings.
Section 1103 specifies procedures whereby a petition may be filed alleging a child is a child in need of supervision.
Section 1114 provides if the court finds the allegations of the petition are supported by the evidence, and it is in the best interest of the child and the public that he be made a ward of the court, the court shall sustain the petition and make an order of adjudication setting forth whether child is delinquent, in need of supervision, or neglected and dependent, and shall adjudge the child as a ward of the court.
Section 1116 provides for dispositional orders which may be made with respect to wards of the court. It provides the court
(1) may place the child on probation or under supervision in his own home, or in the custody of a suitable person elsewhere;
(2) commit the child to custody of a private institution or agency authorized to care for children or place them in family homes;
(3) commit the child to the custody of the Department of Welfare;
(4) dismiss the petition or otherwise terminate its jurisdiction at any time for good cause shown.
Section 1137 provides:
'(a) Whenever a child who has been adjudicated by the court as a child in need of supervision has been committed to the Department, the Department may place the child in an institution or other facility maintained by the State or under its licensure for dependent, neglected or delinquent children, or in a foster home, or in a State school for the mentally retarded if eligible for admission thereto.
In the present case a petition was filed on January 15, 1974, alleging appellants were residents of Tulsa County and in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents. It further alleged:
During a hearing before a referee appellants' attorney stipulated appellants engaged in the conduct alleged in the petition. However, he filed a motion to dismiss the petition on grounds the governing statutes are unconstitutional due to vagueness.
The referee overruled the motion and entered an order finding the children to be children in need of supervision and recommending the children be placed in custody of the Vianney School for Girls.
The trial court confirmed the findings and recommendations of the referee and appellants appeal.
Appellants first contend the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not give potential offenders notice of what they may not do and because it does not provide standards to be followed by courts in applying the statute.
A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional. Application of State of Oklahoma Bldg. Bonds Commission, 202 Okl. 454, 214 P.2d 934, and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Adwon v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Ass'n, 204 Okl. 199, 228 P.2d 376.
In A. v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.2d 83, 335 N.Y.S.2d 33, 286 N.E.2d 432, the court considered a similar attack upon a statute which defined a person in need of supervision as an individual under a certain age 'who does not attend school in accord with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Napier v. Gertrude, 75-1799
...effect on constitutionally protected conduct. Appellant has unsuccessfully argued her cause to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In re Napier, 532 P.2d 423 (Okl.1975).2 It has been decided in other circuits that Rule 23 class actions are technically inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings. The ......
-
Kimery v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
...palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Matter of Daniel Deborah and Leslie H., Okl., 591 P.2d 1175 (1979); In re Napier, Okl., 532 P.2d 423 (1975). Statutes should be construed whenever possible so as to uphold their constitutionality. City of Norman v. Liddell, Okl., 596 ......
-
In Interest of E. B.
...and that the danger that the court may make an unduly restrictive application of the statute seemed unrealistic. In In re Napier, 532 P.2d 423 (Okl.1975), the court considered a statute defining a child in need of supervision as one who is "habitually truant" and held it was not void for va......
- B & W Operating, L.L.C. v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla.
-
"decision Rules" and Kids: Clarifying the Vagueness Problems With Status Offense Statutes and School Disciplinary Rules
...disobedient and beyond the lawful control of parent" because similarly broad language has been upheld in other cases); In re Napier, 532 P.2d 423 (okla. 1975) (upholding PiNS measure merely by citing Patricia A., E.S.G., and S**** S****, cases discussed infra at notes 144-181 and accompanyi......