| "{\"id\": \"10683450\", \"name\": \"STATE of Minnesota ex rel. L.E.A., petitioner, Appellant (50619), State of Minnesota ex rel. S.P., petitioner, Appellant (50620), State of Minnesota ex rel. C.S., petitioner, Appellant (50621), State of Minnesota ex rel. K.H., petitioner, Appellant (50622), State of Minnesota ex rel. K.H., petitioner, Appellant (50623), v. Donald HAMMERGREN, Superintendent, Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Facility, Woodview, Respondent, Donald Omodt, Hennepin County Sheriff, Defendant (50619)\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"State ex rel. L.E.A. v. Hammergren\", \"decision_date\": \"1980-06-20\", \"docket_number\": \"Nos. 50619-50623\", \"first_page\": \"705\", \"last_page\": \"709\", \"citations\": \"294 N.W.2d 705\", \"volume\": \"294\", \"reporter\": \"North Western Reporter 2d\", \"court\": \"Minnesota Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Minnesota\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T23:36:17.317882+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Heard before SHERAN, C. J., PETERSON, and TODD, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.\", \"parties\": \"STATE of Minnesota ex rel. L.E.A., petitioner, Appellant (50619), State of Minnesota ex rel. S.P., petitioner, Appellant (50620), State of Minnesota ex rel. C.S., petitioner, Appellant (50621), State of Minnesota ex rel. K.H., petitioner, Appellant (50622), State of Minnesota ex rel. K.H., petitioner, Appellant (50623), v. Donald HAMMERGREN, Superintendent, Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Facility, Woodview, Respondent, Donald Omodt, Hennepin County Sheriff, Defendant (50619).\", \"head_matter\": \"STATE of Minnesota ex rel. L.E.A., petitioner, Appellant (50619), State of Minnesota ex rel. S.P., petitioner, Appellant (50620), State of Minnesota ex rel. C.S., petitioner, Appellant (50621), State of Minnesota ex rel. K.H., petitioner, Appellant (50622), State of Minnesota ex rel. K.H., petitioner, Appellant (50623), v. Donald HAMMERGREN, Superintendent, Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Facility, Woodview, Respondent, Donald Omodt, Hennepin County Sheriff, Defendant (50619).\\nNos. 50619-50623.\\nSupreme Court of Minnesota.\\nJune 20, 1980.\\nWilliam R. Kennedy, County Public Defender, and Patrick J. Sullivan, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellants.\\nThomas L. Johnson, County Atty., and David W. Larson, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.\\nLinda J. Gallant, Minneapolis, Coalition for the Protection of Youth Rights, Amicus Curiae.\\nHeard before SHERAN, C. J., PETERSON, and TODD, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.\", \"word_count\": \"2058\", \"char_count\": \"13099\", \"text\": \"SHERAN, Chief Justice.\\nPetitioners appeal from dismissal of their petition for habeas corpus in the Fourth Judicial District. Petitioners sought habeas corpus claiming they were wrongfully being held in the Hennepin County Detention Center for contempt of court. The lower court reasoned that under Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.301 and 588.01, subd. 3 (1978), the court has the power to find status offenders in constructive contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders and that In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 245 N.W.2d 204 (1976) permits confinement in any center authorized by the Juvenile Court Act. Consequently, the lower court found that detention in the secure facility was appropriate and dismissed the petition.\\nThe issue raised by this case is whether, despite the language of Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.-173, subd. 3 (1978) stating that wayward children shall be placed in shelter care facilities only, status offenders can be held in secure detention centers after being found in constructive contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders.\\nAlthough each petitioner's case presents a slightly different fact pattern, the parties stipulated to the following common factors. At separate times, the juveniles were each charged with being wayward and habitually disobedient within the meaning of Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.015 (1978). Thereafter, they were each charged with constructive contempt of court under Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 588.01, subd. 3(3) (1978) for violating a court order by running away from a shelter care facility or failing to appear for a hearing. As a result of a finding of constructive contempt of court, each was incarcerated in the Hen-nepin County Juvenile Detention Center.\\nThe individual juveniles may no longer be held in a secure facility. Normally, this would render the case moot but, we find that the issue raised is \\\"capable of repetition but evading review\\\" and take jurisdiction. Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2797, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 861, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 712, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). We make these observations notwithstanding the mootness which moves us to discharge the writ.\\nJuvenile courts have the authority to find a juvenile in contempt of court and to impose appropriate sanctions. But, given the Legislature's expressed disapproval of the practice of confining status offender juveniles in secure facilities, juvenile courts should not direct such confinement for contempt of court unless they first find specifically that there is no less restrictive alternative which could accomplish the court's purpose. In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 245 N.W.2d 204 (1976); see also U. S. v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 319, 95 S.Ct. 1802, 1808, 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975).\\nMinn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.173, subd. 3 (1978) was amended by the Legislature in 1978 in Minn. Laws, ch. 637. The statute before the amendment stated that a child taken into custody by reason of being wayward or habitually disobedient who had previously escaped from a shelter care facility might be placed in a secure detention facility. Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.173 (1976). As amended, Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.173, subd. 3 (1978) states that a child taken into custody because of waywardness or habitual disobedience \\\"may be placed only in a shelter care facility\\\" even if she is conditionally released and has violated her field supervision. The language in the former statute authorizing the placement of these children in a secure detention facility was eliminated. The Hen-nepin County Juvenile Detention Center where these juveniles were incarcerated is a \\\"secure detention facility\\\" defined in Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.015, subd. 16 (1978) as a \\\"physically restricting detention facility, including a detention home.\\\"\\nThe amendment brought Minnesota into compliance with the funding requirements of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States Justice Department. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 requires that each state seeking funds under the Act submit a plan to ensure that wayward or disobedient children \\\"shall not be placed in juvenile detention or correctional facilities.\\\" 42 U.S.C. \\u00a7 5633(a)(12) (1976).\\nMinnesota, in adopting the federal policy of deinstitutionalization of status offenders, is moving in the direction adopted by the ABA Juvenile Justice Standards Project, Standards Relating to Noncriminal Misbehavior. The ABA Standards, and their Commentary, conclude that runaway youth, truant youth, and otherwise \\\"incorrigible\\\" or \\\"wayward\\\" youth are best served outside the juvenile court system and outside juvenile detention facilities. As Amicus Coalition for the Protection of Youth Rights rightly points out, once children are defined as delinquent and placed with delinquent law-breakers, they may conform their behavior to that label, thus countermanding the entire process. E. Schur, Radical NonIntervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem, 118-126 (1973). The Legislature may well have determined that removing status offenders from facilities designed for and used for law violators would result in better treatment, better programs, and better services for the child and that child's family. In addition, we interpret the amendment as reflecting the Legislature's concern with the effects of comingling disobedient or wayward children with juveniles who have allegedly committed more serious crimes.\\nIn light of the foregoing, we hold that only under the most egregious circumstances should the juvenile courts exercise their contempt power in such a manner that a status offender will be incarcerated in a secure facility. If such action is necessary, the record must show that all less restric tive alternatives have failed in the past. (See State in Interest of M.S., 73 N.J. 238, 374 A.2d 445 [1977] for other alternatives.)\\nIn L.A.M. v. State, 547 P.2d 827, 831 (Alaska, 1976), the Alaska Supreme Court noted:\\nBefore a party may be held in criminal or civil contempt for failure to abide by a court order, certain elements must be established: (1) the existence of a valid order directing the alleged contemnor to do or refrain from doing something and the court's jurisdiction to enter that order; (2) the contemnor's notice of the order within sufficient time to comply with it; and in most cases, (3) the con-temnor's ability to comply with the order; and (4) the contemnor's willful failure to comply with the order.\\nIn order for the juvenile court to find a \\\"willful failure to comply\\\" which warrants a holding of contempt, the record from the previous hearing must show that the child understood that disobedience would result in incarceration in a secure facility. A child too young to comprehend the warning cannot be found in contempt of court. With these limitations, the juvenile court can resort to the use of the secure facility if absolutely necessary.\\nFinally, if it is necessary to rely on the use of a secure facility, the order must include instructions to the administrator of the institution that the disobedient child's contact with the more committed juvenile be kept to a minimum.\\nWrit discharged.\\n. A \\\"shelter care facility\\\" is defined by Minn. Stat. \\u00a7 260.015, subd. 17 (1978) as \\\"a physically unrestricting facility, such as a group home or a licensed facility for foster care, excluding a detention home.\\\"\\n. In contrast to adults who, by escape \\\"affront the authority of the State,\\\" children who run away only harm their own well being. State in Interest of M.S., 73 N.J. 238, 374 A.2d 445 (1977).\\n. 1.1 Noncriminal misbehavior generally.\\nA juvenile's acts of misbehavior, ungovern-ability, or unruliness which do not violate the criminal law should not constitute a ground for asserting juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile committing them.\\n*\\n5.2 Prohibition against placement in secure facility.\\nIn no event should alternative residential placement for a juvenile in conflict with his or her family, who has violated no criminal law, be arranged in a secure detention facility or in a secure institution used for the detention or treatment of juveniles accused of crimes or adjudged delinquent.\"}" |