South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health v. State

• Decision Date: 12 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. 23167,23167
• Citation: 390 S.E.2d 185,301 S.C. 75
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH and South Carolina Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc., Intervenors/Appellants, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. In the Interest of DARREN J., Child under the age of 17 years.

Page 185

390 S.E.2d 185

301 S.C. 75

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH and South

Carolina Protection and Advocacy System for the

Handicapped, Inc., Intervenors/Appellants, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

In the Interest of DARREN J., Child under the age of 17 years.

No. 23167.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Argued Oct. 5, 1988.

Decided March 12, 1990.

Kennerly M. McLendon, Mark W. Binkley, Office of Gen. Counsel of S.C.Dept. of Mental Health, Columbia, and David Burlington, of S.C. Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc., Greenville, for intervenors/appellants.

Asst. Sol. Blake A. Martin, Georgetown, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

This is a juvenile proceeding out of which arose questions concerning the authority of the Family Court to commit children within its jurisdiction to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (DMH). Specifically, the issue raised on appeal is whether the Family Court has the authority to commit juveniles to DMH for "safekeeping". Although the specific case involving Darren J. is now moot, this appeal was allowed because it raises a question that is capable of repetition, but which usually becomes moot before it can be reviewed.

Darren J., a seventeen year old minor, was charged with felony DUI and three counts of grand larceny. Due to a number of factors, including the fact that Darren could not return to his home, he had suicidal tendencies, there was a possibility that he would flee if he was released from custody and there is a lack of an appropriate juvenile detention center in Georgetown

                County, the family court judge issued an order requiring DMH to keep Darren in "protective custody" until a transfer hearing was held to transfer jurisdiction to General Sessions.   DMH and the South Carolina Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc. argue on appeal that the Family Court does not have the authority to commit a minor to DMH for "protective custody" or "safekeeping."
                

BACKGROUND

The practice of committing juveniles to DMH for safekeeping prior to adjudication has developed because of the lack of better alternatives. Usually this situation occurs when the child has been taken into custody for the commission of some offense and factors are present such as those in the case of Darren J., which make it necessary to detain the child prior to adjudication. Placement in DMH also occurs, however, in abuse and neglect and incorrigibility cases.

Prior to the amendment of S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-3230, these children were sent to the Department of Youth Services; however, this statute was revised in 1984 to prohibit this practice. Section 20-7-3230 provides in pertinent part: "[t]he commitment of a child to any reception and evaluation center or youth correctional institution of the department [DYS] may be made only after the child has been adjudicated delinquent." This statute was amended apparently as the result of an incident where a child was sent to DYS for safekeeping pending trial and he hung himself. Unfortunately, the Legislature did not specify where the children should be detained prior to adjudication.

The real issue in this case is what to do with these children pending adjudication. The Family Court has the authority to temporarily detain a child and make arrangements for his custody. See, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 20-7-600 and 20-7-620. But in the situation with which we are faced, the Family Court does not have an adequate place to detain the child and protect him or others from harm caused by the child.

On the other hand, DMH cites numerous problems that are caused by committing a juvenile for safekeeping. Some of these adverse effects include the following:

(1) DMH's funds that are earmarked to care for mentally ill children are expended.

(2) It contributes to the chronic overcrowding in the children's unit.

(3) It results in less staff availability and therefore diminished treatment.

(4) It results in increased stress on staff and patients and a corresponding increase in the potential for adverse incidents.

(5) If an accident occurred it could result in DMH and its employees being subject to liability for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The solution to this problem is beyond the control of this Court. It is the responsibility of the Legislature to designate an appropriate place for the temporary detention of these children. What we will decide in this opinion involves only the statutory authority of the Family Court to commit juveniles to DMH for safekeeping or protective custody.

ANALYSIS

The Family Court is a statutory court created by the Legislature and, therefore, is of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is limited to that expressly or by necessary implication conferred by statute. The jurisdictional authority of the Court is set forth in the Children's Code. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-10, et seq.

The Family Court has specific statutory authority to commit juveniles to the Department who are in need of an examination or treatment....