This Gold Dome Report covers the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting which was held on August 9, 2010 where the Committee took up Article 6 of Title 15 of the proposed Juvenile Code Re-Write (formerly known as SB 292 from 2009).  Sen. Bill Hamrick (R-Carrollton) presided over the discussions.

Former Juvenile Court Judge Sharon Hill outlined the "CHINS" process as outlined in this portion of the Code proposal.  CHINS means children in need of services.  These are children who have violations purely because of the status of being a minor and would include children who disobey parents or rule of law or governance.  For instance, this process would be used for children who skip school or run away from home. CHINS is the proposed approach to use for intervening with children who are considered to be "unruly."

The CHINS case would have a complaint filed (it would include cases of truancy or issues involving school matters).  However, this complaint must show that there was an attempt to address the problem at school prior to the filing of the complaint.  These complaints may be filed by the parent, Division of Family and Children's Services, the school, law enforcement, a guardian ad litem or the prosecuting attorney.

Detention for these children would only be undertaken if it was a need of the child. 

These cases would have a mandatory conference pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10.  This conference would be convened by the court's intake officer (these officers vary by county – in some instances the intake folks are the juvenile court judges).  This meeting would be a "multi-disciplinary conference" and would involve the child and his or her parents.   Courts would have the option to order participation of individuals in these conferences.  Judge Hill was asked, by Sen. Hamrick, why courts were not using these conferences now as they are in current law.  There was no good reason given.

The "plan" to come from this conference is an agreement that will outline services and actions to address the child's inappropriate conduct which will then be overseen by a case worker from the Division of Family and Children's Services.  This "plan" can be extended for up to six months, and a court may extend it an additional six-month period.

The court's intake officer may waive this multi-disciplinary conference, if it would be "inappropriate or futile."  If the child completes the plan, the case is then completed and over.  If the plan is not completed, then a petition may be filed by the District Attorney where the case will then be treated much like the current unruly cases.

Sen. Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg) inquired about the necessary resources to handle these types of cases and whether more agencies' resources will be necessary.  It will vary, per Judge Hill, according to the jurisdiction.  Division of Family and Children's Services is a statewide office.  When a case is determined to be "futile" to go to conference, then the case will be adjudicated.  There is also language permitting an emergency situation which will also go to adjudication.

Sheltered care is embedded in CHINS.  Judge Hill explained that this language was added to permit Georgia to qualify for more IV-E funding.  There will be a need for court-ordered language for qualification of these federal funds and such money will allow the State an opportunity to address the needs of these children.  Additionally, the language in Article 6 addresses non-secured placements as well as secured detention.  Secured detention will be for a very short time frame – up to 24 hours for both rural and urban cases.  Judge Hill acknowledged that some jurisdictions will have difficulty meeting the 24-hour limit especially on holidays and on weekends.

There is another group of children covered by CHINS and that is the group of children who are delinquent but who are "unrestorably able to stand trial."  These are children who are intellectually disabled.  There is a requirement for an order for evaluation for competency.  If "unrestorably competent," then the child becomes a CHINS case.   Sen. Robert Brown (D-Macon) inquired about the process to determine disability of the child and the level of the child's understanding.  Sen. Bill Cowsert (R-Athens) asked additional questions about the multi-disciplinary conference and what would happen if a child's parents did not like the proposed plan.  Judge Hill explained that the conference was much like a mediation matter.

There were several folks present who testified about the language offered for Article 6.  Thomas Williams, a District Attorney fro the Flint Judicial Circuit, agreed that Article 6 was important and an effort to decriminalize offenses.  He also thought it was laudable for the consideration of treating the cause of misconduct; however there are inconsistencies in the language.  His issue surrounded having the Division of Family and Children's Services in charge of the conference.  He acknowledged that Georgia currently has 102 juvenile court judges – to bring on a new District Attorney in one of the 49 judicial circuits would cost at minimum of $69,000 (without training and benefits for the new assistant district attorney and support staff).  Presently, there are 29 of 49 District Attorneys who have contact with the juvenile courts.  He proposed that the District Attorney be removed from the CHINS process; rather he suggested utilizing "SAGs" to conduct the hearings as they are familiar with IV-E services.  There were questions relating to who would be opposed to removing the District Attorneys; the response was likely the Attorney General and SAGs.

Wayne Drummond, with the Georgia County Welfare Association, stated that he did not believe that the Division of Family and Children's Services was the appropriate entity to conduct the multi-disciplinary team meetings.  Both Virginia and Massachusetts use multi-disciplinary teams.  Massachusetts even tried using an outside entity which billed for those services; that activity was later ruled unconstitutional.  Mr. Drummond, though, agreed with the proposed multi-disciplinary approach.  Under the proposal, he estimated that 91 additional case workers would be needed at a cost of $3 million for their services.

Cathy McCullough, with the Juvenile Justice Fund, discussed how the proposal for CHINS would not work for sexually exploited children.  These children are not delinquent or neglected necessarily.  She argued that the language had a double legal message.

Betty Bentley Watson, an attorney with the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, supported the CHINS process.  This Department suggested collaboration with another department.  With respect to the question of competency, she raised the question of "general competency" or whether the child understood the charges and the process.  This Department also fears that the use of the language "unrestorably incompetent" would impose a stigma on the child; rather this Department suggested using "unable to participate in proceedings" as a better option.