Tommy P. v. Board of County Com'rs of Spokane County

• Decision Date: 27 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 45488-4,45488-4
• Citation: 645 P.2d 697,97 Wn.2d 385
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: , 4 Ed. Law Rep. 654 TOMMY P. by Gordon Bovey, his Guardian ad Litem, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, Appellant, Superior Court For Spokane County, Defendant.

Page 385

97 Wn.2d 385

645 P.2d 697, 4 Ed. Law Rep. 654

TOMMY P. by Gordon Bovey, his Guardian ad Litem, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, Appellant, Superior Court For Spokane County, Defendant.

No. 45488-4.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

May 27, 1982.

Donald C. Brockett, Spokane County Prosecutor, Garald A. Gesinger, Deputy Pros. Atty., Spokane, for appellant.

Spokane Legal Services, Joseph Valente, Spokane, Gary Wiggs, Seattle, Elizabeth J. Jameson, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.

Stephen Kenyon, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, amicus curiae.

PEARSON, Justice.

The Spokane County Board of Commissioners appeals a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff class of all juveniles of compulsory school age who are or will be placed in the Spokane Juvenile Detention facility is entitled to education while in detention, and that such education shall be funded by the county.

We hold that, under the provisions of RCW Titles 13 and 28A, juveniles of school age have a right to education while detained in juvenile detention centers, both before and after adjudication and disposition. We hold further that the costs of providing such education to juvenile detainees should be included in the county budget as part of the cost of running the juvenile detention facility.

The named plaintiff, Tommy P., represents a class composed of all juveniles of compulsory school age who are now, or in the future will be, placed in the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center. In June 1975, this class brought an action in Spokane County Superior Court against Spokane School District 81, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Spokane County, for their failure to provide educational facilities, equipment, personnel, and other resources to members of the plaintiff class. The school district and the Superintendent of Public Instruction were dismissed from the action with prejudice in October 1976. In July 1976, the Spokane County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the County to implement a preliminary education plan in its detention facility. The plan, which is still in effect pending this appeal, requires the hiring of an education specialist to conduct evaluation and assessment of each detainee within 3 days of his arrival at the facility, and to formulate an academic plan to assist the detainee in maintaining his performance level in the academic system. Special instruction and assistance are provided to those detainees who require it.

The hearing began in the Superior Court in June 1976. The plaintiffs called a number of witnesses with experience in dealing with juveniles in detention who testified to the need for an education program in the detention facility. The County called no witnesses. The court issued its declaratory judgment in January 1977. This declared that the plaintiff class has a right to treatment in the nature of education pursuant to the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, the due process clause of the Washington Constitution, article 1, section 3, and the Washington Basic Juvenile Court Act, RCW 13.04. This judgment was appealed to this court, which remanded in December 1978 for further briefing and evidence on the effect on the need for education in detention facilities of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, RCW 13.40 (hereafter JJA), which took effect on July 1, 1978. Following this remand, the plaintiffs moved to reinstate Spokane School District 81 and the Superintendent of Public Instruction as defendants, and to join the State of Washington, the state Board of Education, and the Superior Court for Spokane County as defendants. The court allowed only the joinder of the Spokane County Superior Court and denied the reinstatement or joinder of the other parties. A consent order was subsequently entered providing that the Superior Court for Spokane County shall administer the provision of educational services to all children detained at the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center.

The hearing on remand was held in June 1981. The plaintiffs produced evidence showing that the JJA significantly increased the time spent by juveniles in detention before disposition of their cases. The evidence also showed that education programs in detention not only improved the academic achievement of detainees, but also alleviated discipline and security problems in the facility, and even reduced the incidence of suicide attempts. The court entered findings and conclusions and issued another declaratory judgment. This judgment declared that the plaintiffs have a right to treatment in the nature of education pursuant to the due process clauses of the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution, a statutory right to education pursuant to RCW 13.04, 13.40, and 28A.27, and a right to educational services pursuant to Const. art. 9, § 1. The findings, conclusions, and judgment were appealed to this court.

Although the underlying issue throughout the litigation has always been the right of juvenile detainees to education, the County's approach to that issue has not been consistent. In appealing the trial court's 1977 declaratory judgment and findings and conclusions, the County raised only two issues:

1. Do juvenile detainees have either a constitutional or statutory right to "educational treatment" prior to an adjudication of either delinquency or dependency, which must be provided by the Board of County Commissioners?

2. Is there sufficient evidence to support the court's findings that:

Members of the plaintiff class, as juvenile detainees, have special educational needs requiring evaluative and remediative treatment and it is essential for the ultimate rehabilitation of the detainees that educational treatment be promptly provided. It must be provided soon after admission to the Detention Center.

There is no meaningful distinction in the need for educational treatment of the pre-adjudication and post-adjudication detainee. It is further shown that on some occasions pre-adjudication detainees are detained for lengthy periods of time, and this delay is the result of the needs of the juvenile court or the legal process. Average length of stay for all detainees is 4.71 days ...

Significantly, the County assigned no error to the court's conclusion that defendant Spokane County is responsible to fulfill the detainees' right to educational treatment. Further, the brief of the County makes it clear that its objection to the two challenged findings was only that the record contained no evidence that educational evaluation and remediative treatment during preadjudicatory detention are essential for the ultimate rehabilitation of the detainee.

The County appeared to accept that it was responsible for providing education to postadjudicatory detainees, and its only contention was that this responsibility did not extend to preadjudicatory detainees. With the case in this posture, the court remanded for a further hearing on the effect of the JJA on the issue.

The County's position was reflected in the testimony which plaintiffs presented at the second hearing. Much of the testimony was directed towards establishing that under the JJA juveniles were detained longer before adjudication or disposition, and that such preadjudicated juveniles would benefit from education. In turn, this was reflected in the trial court's findings; the court essentially found that there was a need for educational treatment in detention, and that there was no meaningful distinction between preadjudicated and postadjudicated children in their need for education.

In appealing these findings and the second declaratory judgment, the County broadened its attack considerably. It asserted on its second appeal that "juvenile detainees" had no right to education or educational treatment under the due process clause of the federal and state constitutions, under art. 9, § 1 of the Washington Constitution or under RCW 13.04 or 13.40, and that even if detainees had such a right, it was not up to the counties to provide the education.

This procedural history is significant because it has created two areas of difficulty for the County on this appeal. First, the County presented no evidence to rebut the plaintiffs' showings of the need for education in detention, although there were two hearings on this issue. The County's argument that no juvenile detainee has a right to education was rather belatedly developed after the second hearing. Consequently, this argument is made in the face of uncontroverted testimony of various persons with experience in the juvenile detention system that education is necessary for juveniles in detention.

The second difficulty is the County's alternative argument that if juvenile detainees have a right to education, then the correlative duty to provide that education must rest on the state, rather than the counties. The County thereby seeks to avoid the duty of providing education to juvenile detainees (a duty it appeared to concede initially in the proceedings, at least in respect of postadjudicatory detainees) by shifting that duty to another party which had been dismissed with prejudice from these proceedings over 5 years before the present appeal.

The County would have us, therefore, decide this issue prejudicially to the state, but in the state's absence. Were we convinced by the County's arguments that the state, rather than the counties, is liable for the provision of education to detainees, we would have difficulty rendering in "equity and good conscience" a decision to that effect in the state's absence from these proceedings. CR 19; Aungst v. Roberts Constr. Co., 95 Wash.2d 439, 625 P.2d 167 (1981). Rather, we would be obliged to remand for such further proceedings as might be necessary for a complete adjudication of the issue. Cf. Automobile Club...