On Point blog, page 11 of 17
Restitution may be ordered in JIPS cases only after a finding the juvenile committed a delinquent act
State v. B.A.H., 2015AP1256-FT, District 4, 10/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While restitution is a possible disposition in a proceeding involving a juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS), it can only be ordered when there has been a finding a finding the juvenile committed a delinquent act. Because there was no such finding in the JIPS case involving B.A.H., the juvenile court had no authority to order restitution.
Circuit court properly found parent failed to meet conditions of CHIPS order
Dane County DHS v. Connie H., 2015AP552, District 4, 8/20/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised it discretion when it denied Connie’s petition to revise a CHIPS dispositional order to lift a suspension of visits with her son, K.H.
Juvenile court applied proper standards when ordering disposition, despite “imprecise” language referring to adult sentencing standards
State v. Ali H., 2015AP41, District 1, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Though the juvenile court judge “was perhaps imprecise with its language,” the court of appeals concludes the judge did not erroneously apply adult sentencing considerations of punishment and deterrence when it decided to order Ali placed at Lincoln Hills.
Credible victim supports adjudication on one count, but trial court’s mistake of law invalidates adjudication on second count
State v. Arron A.-R., 2014AP142, District 1, 6/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Arron delinquency adjudication for one count of first degree sexual assault is supported by the testimony of the victim, S.F., but the adjudication for a second count is reversed because the trial court erred in believing that the charge required only sexual contact, not sexual intercourse.
Waiver of juvenile to adult court upheld
State v. Juwon B., 2014AP2504, District 2, 2/11/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in waiving Juwon to adult court despite the fact Juwon lacked any prior record and was a “good kid who made a mistake.”
Circuit court properly exercised discretion in waiver juvenile to adult court
State v. Mariah E., 2014AP1788, District 2, 1/14/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The decision to waive a juvenile into adult court is reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion, State v. Tyler T., 2012 WI 52, ¶24, 341 Wis. 2d 1, 814 N.W.2d 192, and in this case the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in waiving sixteen-year-old Mariah to adult court on charges of battery of a police officer, battery to an emergency worker, and resisting and obstructing.
JIPS order was supported by sufficient evidence and doesn’t violate parents’ religious rights
State v. Ester M. and Alexander M., 2014AP1621, District 1, 12/16/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court’s order finding Soreh M. to be a juvenile in need of protection or services evidence is supported by sufficient and doesn’t impinge on the right to religious freedom of her parents, Ester M. and Alexander M. In addition, the circuit court had the statutory authority to order conditions for the parents to complete before the court would consider placing Soreh M. in their home again.
Failure to hold hearing within statutory time limit means circuit court lost competency to decide ch. 54 guardianship petition
Tina B. v. Richard H., 2014 WI App 123; case activity
The circuit court lost competency to decide a guardianship proceeding under § 54.34 because it failed to decide the case within the statutory time limit, but the circuit court’s decisions in a related guardianship proceeding under § 48.977 are affirmed.
Initial “stay” of juvenile sex offender reporting requirement wasn’t a permanent stay under § 938.34(16)
State v. Jermaine C., 2014AP467, District 1, 10/21/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court’s decision at Jermaine’s disposition hearing to stay the sex offender registration requirement wasn’t a permanent stay of the requirement under § 938.34(16) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, because the record shows the circuit court was only deferring a final decision on a permanent stay pending reviews of Jermaine’s progress.
Court of Appeals drains more meaning from the word “exigency”
State v. Joel I.-N., 2014 WI App 119; case activity
The unrecorded statement Joel I.N., a juvenile, gave to the police was admissible despite the fact the police failed to record the statement as required by §§ 983.195(2)(b) and 938.31(3)(b) because “exigent public safety circumstances” rendered recording his statement infeasible under § 938.31(3)(c)5. Joel also knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.