Status Offenses
Class 7
Status Offenses and the Origins
of the Juvenile Court
• The Court envisioned a broad reach to any form of
juvenile misbehavior, not just criminal behavior?
• The court acted “for the state, as a parent,” to protect
children who were abused or abandoned, living with
“disreputable adults,” beggars, found gambling or
drinking in saloons, wandering the streets (at night)
• Parenting children accused of criminal conduct was
almost an afterthought in the original juvenile courts
• The court called children to account for any
misbehavior, whether legal (if done by an adult) or
illegal. It substituted for parents to correct the behavior
of unruly children
What is a “Status Offense”?
• Embedded in early Juvenile Court statutes
• Acts that are wrong only because the actor is a minor
– “Incorrigibility” or unruly
– “Indecent behavior” (lasciviousness, bad
associations)
– Truancy
– Running away from home
– Prohibited conduct – sexual behavior, smoking or
drinking
• Social class dynamics
• More problem-behavior – cultural – focus in
recent decades
Supreme Court Rationale
• Bellotti v Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)
– ‘Peculiar vulnerability of children’
– Children’s inability to crucial decisions in an
informed manner (competence? Immaturity?)
– Importance of parental role in child rearing
Juvenile Court Responses
to Status Offenders
• Gender dynamics – see, Hagan, “Power Control
Theory” -- thread from “immorality” to
pregnancy, girls were often detained
• Detention as “front end” punishment, largely
unregulated both in its use and its conditions for
several decades
• Conflict with diversionary theory of juvenile court
• Court ordered restrictions on freedom of
movement
• Violation of “valid court order” is delinquency,
subject to full force of juvenile court sanctions and
interventions
Typical Statutes
• California W&I Code §601
–
–
–
–
Minors habitually disobedient or truant
Runaways
Petty offenses – misdemeanors, mostly
Alcohol, controlled substances
• Ohio Stat. §2151.022
–
–
–
–
Unruly behavior – defiance of parental control
Truant
Self-endangerment, moral hazard
Visit disreputable places
Modern Reforms
• Tied to rights movements in 1960s
– Context of constitutional activism and change in juvenile
court setting (Gault, Kent) challenged wisdom and fairness of
procedural informality
– Skepticism about efficacy of rehabilitation generally
• Segregation of “status offenders” from other juvenile
offenders in detention and correctional placements
• Influence of “labeling theory” or secondary deviance on
reforms
• Ties to victim rights movements – runaways and child
prostitutes seen as victims of violence in families and other
family pathologies or inadequacies – shift of legal attention
to sanctions on parents
• Increasing use of mental health placements to circumvent
prohibition of ‘status offenders’ in the juvenile court
• Theoretical tension between control of children and
fostering developmental progress toward “autonomy”
– Tension between parent and child over autonomy and
rights
– Tensions between parent and state when parents alocate
rights to children that the state might not (e.g., Ramos v
Town of Vernon ordinance)
• Missing children as animator of popular concerns about
need for stronger public protection of children
Cases
• S.S. and L.B. v. State (299 A.2d.560
(Me.1973))
– Due process guarantees cannot be equated with
vagueness concerns
– Rejection of some aspects of Gault? Due
process not required here despite possibility of
loss of liberty
– “These standards are not vague when applied to
this class”
• E.S.G. v. State (447 S.W.2d (Tex. Ct. Civ. App.
1969))
– Facts (female)
– Confined indefinitely in state correctional agency
to age 21
– Vague standard? Child-specific standard of
conduct (concern for health and morals of child is
heart of statute)
– Rights of child are protected by careful mapping
of alleged conduct to the danger to health and
morals
Legislation
JJDPA (42 U.S.C. 5601)
• The Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of
1974 mandated that states receiving any federal (JJDP) funds are shall
comply with three specific requirements contained in the Act:
• Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)
– Status offenders may not be held in secure detention or confinement.
(Status offenses are non-criminal offenses that only apply to children
under 18, such as skipping school, running away, and breaking curfew.)
There are several exceptions to this rule that allow for temporary
confinement for up to 24 hours.
– This provision seeks to ensure that status offenders who have
committed no criminal offenses are not placed in jails and prisons,
including adult jails and prisons, for extended periods of time. These
children need community responses – including alternative schools,
residential homes, counseling, mentors, and jobs – not jail.
• Separation
– Children may not have any type of contact with adult offenders in
confinement. This prohibition includes both "sight" and "sound" contact.
– This provision protects children from abuse - physical and verbal - and
physical assault. Under this provision, children can not be put in adjoining
cells with adults, or placed in circumstances that allow them to be subject to
threats and verbal abuse from adults in dining halls, recreation areas, and
other common spaces.
• Removal
– Children may not be detained in adult jails and prisons, except for limited
times before or after a court hearing (6 hours), in rural areas (24 hours plus
weekends and holidays), and in unsafe travel conditions (24 hours.)
– This provision protects children from abuse – physical and verbal – and
physical assault because children housed in adult prisons are 8 times more
likely to commit suicide; 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted; 2
times more likely to be assaulted by staff; and 50% more likely to be
attacked with a weapon compared to children in juvenile facilities.
Female Commitment Rates in Public and Private Facilities per
100,000 by Reason for Committment
3
Delinquent
Status Offender
Dependent, Neglected or Abused
Emotionally Disturbed or Mentally Retarded
Other
Voluntarily Committed
Rate per 100,000 Females
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Curfews, Loitering, and Other Side
Doors into Status Offenses
• Bellotti v Baird logic
• Reassertion of Status Offense Logic as
Crime Control
– Ramos v. City of Vernon
– Morales (reconfigured), People v. Acura
– Parental liability statutes
• Empowerment of parents to use law as
auxiliary for parental authority
The Hooky Party!
• State – school – parent relationship ?
• Limits of state authority on behavior ?
• Health concern covered under current
caselaw ?
• ACLU suit