Posted on October 21, 2008 by Kysa Crusco
Comment sent from anonymous:
NH's judicial system failed to act in the best interest of James by ignoring James' Constitutional Rights, including his Disability Rights and his right to have a CHINS,. James is a child who had already been declared by Social Security Administration during 3/2007 as a mentally disabled child and he was also a child with a repeated history of unsafe and aggressive behaviors who reported to have experienced hallucinations. Since when is it just for the NH Judicial System to label a mentally disabled children as a "Juvenile Delinquents" and since when do supposed Juvenile Delinquents experience hallucinations? Those who denied James' Constitutional Rights should live as James' parent for a year or two, staying up every night to keep James and the rest of the family safe only to be told by NH DCYF that { 2 hours of someone coming to the house per day and an emergency pager number is sufficient as there had been no lethalities yet! } - Which means that a lethality would result in a higher level of "human services".... Unlike the "Live Free or Die" state who failed to provide a CHINS for James, the MA Judicial System was able to recognize that James was in fact a Child In Need of Services, who needed mental health services and did not attempt to label James as a juvenile delinquent. The State of NH's attempt to paint James as a "perfectly healthy normal child with no mental illness who is in no way a threat to himself nor to the community" and their failure to provide the necessary services for James caused harm to both James and to his family.....
In Re James N. holds that delinquent acts cannot be the basis of a CHINS petition
Posted on October 21, 2008 by Kysa Crusco
In Re James N. holds that delinquent acts cannot be the basis of a CHINS petition
The New Hampshire Supreme Court released In Re James N. on October 8, 2008 holding that the basis of a CHINS petition under the Child in Need of Services statute cannot be founded upon a delinquent act.
In 2007, the Mother filed a CHINS petition involving her 6 year old son James, who at the time was in DCYF’s custody. Mother alleged that he was a child in need of services for failing to obey the reasonable commands of his parent, guardian or custodian pursuant to RSA 169-D:2, II(b). The specific acts alleged in the petition were: threatening others with physical harm, threatening to set fire to a residence, harming his foster family’s dog, attempting to strangle his foster brother, head butting, biting, and placing glass “sharps” in others’ clothing.
At the hearing, James, joined by DCYF, moved to dismiss arguing that the alleged underlying facts are delinquent acts and may not be included in a CHINS petition. The court granted James’ motion finding that the petition failed because the acts alleged were delinquent acts.
The mother then filed four delinquency petitions alleging cruelty to animals, simple assault, and reckless conduct. James moved to dismiss arguing that a six-year old is presumed not to be competent to stand trial in delinquency proceedings and is presumed not to be capable of committing a crime due to his tender age. The court agreed with James and found that he could not consult with his attorney or have a rational understanding of the proceeding. Therefore, it would be a violation of his due process rights to make him stand trial.
The mother appeals to the NH Supreme Court and argues that the allegation of a delinquent act should not be fatal to a CHINS petition if the child cannot form the required mens rea (guilty mind). The court disagreed, and stated that the plain language of the statute does not allow delinquent acts to be included in a CHINS petition. Further, under the Mother’s interpretation the child would have to prove his guilt with respect to the act in order to show the act should be excluded from the petition. This would be an absurd result and the legislature would not pass an act leading to an absurdity. Additionally, the court points out that the definition of a child in need of services supports their interpretation because the definition does not overlap with the definition of a delinquent.
Crusco Law Office Law Clerk Marisa L. Ulloa contributed to this post.
TAGS: CHINS, In Re James N, Juvenile Law, New Hampshire Supreme Court, RSA 169-B, RSA 169-D, delinquent child
The New Hampshire Supreme Court released In Re James N. on October 8, 2008 holding that the basis of a CHINS petition under the Child in Need of Services statute cannot be founded upon a delinquent act.
In 2007, the Mother filed a CHINS petition involving her 6 year old son James, who at the time was in DCYF’s custody. Mother alleged that he was a child in need of services for failing to obey the reasonable commands of his parent, guardian or custodian pursuant to RSA 169-D:2, II(b). The specific acts alleged in the petition were: threatening others with physical harm, threatening to set fire to a residence, harming his foster family’s dog, attempting to strangle his foster brother, head butting, biting, and placing glass “sharps” in others’ clothing.
At the hearing, James, joined by DCYF, moved to dismiss arguing that the alleged underlying facts are delinquent acts and may not be included in a CHINS petition. The court granted James’ motion finding that the petition failed because the acts alleged were delinquent acts.
The mother then filed four delinquency petitions alleging cruelty to animals, simple assault, and reckless conduct. James moved to dismiss arguing that a six-year old is presumed not to be competent to stand trial in delinquency proceedings and is presumed not to be capable of committing a crime due to his tender age. The court agreed with James and found that he could not consult with his attorney or have a rational understanding of the proceeding. Therefore, it would be a violation of his due process rights to make him stand trial.
The mother appeals to the NH Supreme Court and argues that the allegation of a delinquent act should not be fatal to a CHINS petition if the child cannot form the required mens rea (guilty mind). The court disagreed, and stated that the plain language of the statute does not allow delinquent acts to be included in a CHINS petition. Further, under the Mother’s interpretation the child would have to prove his guilt with respect to the act in order to show the act should be excluded from the petition. This would be an absurd result and the legislature would not pass an act leading to an absurdity. Additionally, the court points out that the definition of a child in need of services supports their interpretation because the definition does not overlap with the definition of a delinquent.
Crusco Law Office Law Clerk Marisa L. Ulloa contributed to this post.
TAGS: CHINS, In Re James N, Juvenile Law, New Hampshire Supreme Court, RSA 169-B, RSA 169-D, delinquent child
No comments:
Post a Comment