State v. Brandon B.

• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Citation: State v. Brandon B., 624 S.E.2d 761, 218 W. Va. 324 (W. Va. 2005)
• Docket Number: 32052, 32563
• Decision Date: 17 November 2005
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. BRANDON B., Defendant Below, Appellee, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Appellant. State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. JaQuin B., Defendant Below, Appellee, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Appellant.

218 W. Va. 324

624 S.E.2d 761

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. BRANDON B., Defendant Below, Appellee, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Appellant. State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. JaQuin B., Defendant Below, Appellee, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Appellant.

No. 32052, 32563.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Submitted: Nov. 1, 2005.

Filed: Nov. 17, 2005.

624 S.E.2d 761

Darrell V. MeGraw, Jr., Attorney General, C. Carter Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellant, West Virginia Department of ' Health and Human Resources.

Pamela Jean Games-Neely, Prosecuting Attorney, Christopher C. Quasebarth, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Martinsburg, for Appellee, State of West Virginia.

Paul E. Lane, Martinsburg, for Appellee, Brandon B.

Darrell V. MeGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Christopher C. McClung, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellant, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources.

Frank. H. Fitch, III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Wellsburg; for Appellee, State of West Virginia.

Thomas M. Moore, Assistant Public Defender, Weirton, for Appellee, JaQuin B.

Justice DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

DAVIS, Justice.

In these consolidated eases, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (hereinafter “WVDHHR”) appeals from the dispositions in two separate juvenile delinquency proceedings where the respective circuit courts1 temporarily placed the juveniles in out-of-state facilities. The WVDHHR argues that the circuit courts failed to comply with W. Va.Code § 49-5D-3 (2004) (Repl.Vol.2004), which mandates the institution of a multidisciplinary treatment planning process. Based on the parties’ arguments,2 the record designated for our consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we reverse the decisions of the circuit courts.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The case before us involves (wo consolidated juvenile cases: the case of Brandon B.3 *327 (hereinafter “Brandon”) and the ease of Ja-Quin B. (hereinafter “JaQuin”). The two cases are unrelated, except as to the application of W. Ya.Code § 49-5D-3. For a background understanding of the cases, we will discuss the factual allegations separately as they apply to each juvenile.

A.Case of Brandon

At the age of sixteen, Brandon was charged in a juvenile proceeding with battery on a police officer, obstructing/resisting, and domestic assault. Because of the nature of his alleged crimes, Brandon was placed at the Eastern Regional Detention Center while awaiting adjudication. An agreement was reached between the prosecutor and Brandon that Brandon would admit his actions, would be adjudicated a delinquent4 for the battery and domestic assault, the obstructing charge would be dropped, and Brandon would be placed in the custody of the WVDHHR for placement at the Glen Mills School in Pennsylvania.

An adjudicatory hearing was held on March 19, 2004. The hearing was scheduled for the afternoon; however, the case was called during the morning docket. The transcript of the hearing reveals that the circuit court called the case early to accommodate one of the attorney’s schedules. The court accepted the proposed agreement, and adjudged Brandon to be a delinquent. During the adjudicatory hearing, the court addressed the juvenile directly and, because the prosecutor and Brandon agreed about placement, made the decision “to move forward with disposition at this time, by agreement and at request of counsel, having signed the acknowledgment and admission which you and [your counsel] each signed, and further having entered the adjudication order reflecting adjudication.” The court placed Brandon in the custody of the WVDHHR for placement at the Glen Mills School in Pennsylvania.

Later in the day on March 19, 2004, the juvenile probation officer (hereinafter “JPO”) telephoned the WVDHHR to advise that a dispositional hearing had been held earlier that morning, and that a disposition had been reached. Brandon was placed at the Glen Mills school on April 12, 2004. Brandon did not object to the failure to convene a multidisciplinary treatment planning process. Since the filing of the appellate briefs, Brandon successfully completed his placement program and was released.

B.Case of JaQuin

JaQuin was fifteen years of age when a juvenile delinquency petition was filed. A plea agreement was reached wherein JaQuin admitted to a charge of brandishing a weapon, the State agreed to drop other pending charges and not to pursue other possible charges, and JaQuin agreed to placement at George Junior Republic, a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania.

An adjudicatory hearing and a dispositional hearing were held on June 16, 2004. The circuit court approved the plea agreement, adjudicated JaQuin as a delinquent, placed him in the custody of the WVDHHR, and ordered him placed at George Junior Republic. JaQuin was admitted to George Junior Republic on June 21, 2004. The WVDHHR received no notice of the delinquency petition or of the adjudicatory hearing, and was not. involved in the plea negotiations. In fact, the WVDHHR had no knowledge of the juvenile proceeding until it received a letter from the placement facility regarding paperwork required under the interstate compact. JaQuin did not contest the adjudication process or his placement. He successfully completed the placement program in January 2005, and was released.

C.Consolidated Cases

The WVDHHR filed petitions for appeal in both cases, arguing that the respective circuit courts failed to follow the mandatoiy guidelines set forth in W. Ya.Code § 49-5D-3. It is undisputed that the WVDHHR was not present for either of the juvenile proceedings at the adjudicatory or the disposi-tional phases. Further, it is acknowledged that no multidisciplinary treatment planning process was instituted for either juvenile pri- or to the adjudicatory and dispositional hear*328 ings. These cases were consolidated by order of this Court on March 9, 2005.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To resolve the issue before us, we are required to consider the application of the relevant statute. In this regard, we have held that “ ‘[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.’ Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).” Syl. pt. 3, Alden v. Harpers Ferry Police Civil Serv. Comm’n, 209 W.Va. 83 , 543 S.E.2d 364 (2001). Mindful of these applicable standards, we now consider the substantive issues herein raised.

III. DISCUSSION

The WVDHHR appeals, bringing before this Court the issue of whether the circuit courts circumvented the statutorily-mandated multidisciplinary treatment planning process. The State of West Virginia, Brandon, and JaQuin (hereinafter referred to collectively as “appellees”) argue first that the WVDHHR does not have standing to bring this appeal, and second that the issues raised herein are now moot and should be dismissed. Because the issues of mootness and standing are dispositive issues, we will address them prior to our examination of the statute. We will first direct our attention to the issue of standing, then we will turn our attention to the issue of mootness.

A. Standing

The appellees argue that the WVDHHR lacks standing to bring this appeal. The contention of the appellees is that both juveniles agreed with the adjudication and dispositions; therefore, the WVDHHR does not have the right to appeal the result. Moreover, the appellees buttress this argument by averring that only the juveniles and the prosecutors are parties to the underlying actions; therefore, as a nonparty, the WVDHHR is not afforded appellate recourse. We cannot agree with either argument.

We have previously stated that “standing is defined as ‘[a] party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.’ Black’s Law Dictionary 1413 (7th ed.1999).” Findley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 213 W.Va. 80 , 94, 576 S.E.2d 807 , 821 (2002). Ultimately, “the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” State ex rel. Abraham Line Corp. v. Bedell, 216 W.Va. 99 , 111-12, 602 S.E.2d 542 , 554-55 (2004) (internal citations omitted) (Davis, J., concurring). More specifically,

Standing is comprised of three elements: First, the party attempting to establish standing must have suffered an “injury-in-fact” — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent and not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct forming the basis of the lawsuit. Third, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed through a favorable decision of the court.

Syl. pt. 5, Findley, 213 W.Va. 80 , 576 S.E.2d 807 .

In the present case, the WVDHHR seeks to litigate its right to participate in the underlying juvenile proceedings, and is not seeldng to enforce the rights of the juveniles. In fact, the affected juveniles filed briefs opposing the arguments set forth by the WVDHHR. Therefore, we must determine if the WVDHHR has a proper right to assert. An examination of the child welfare statutes5 reveal that the WVDHHR “is designated as the agency to cooperate with the United States department of health and human services and United States department of justice in extending and improving child welfare services, to comply with regulations thereof, and to receive and expend federal funds for these services.” W. Va.Code § 49-1 — 1(d) (1999) (Repl.Vol.2004). Further, we are guided by the pmpose of a multidisciplinary team, which

is to provide a system for evaluation of and coordinated service delivery for ... children undergoing certain status offense and delinquency

...