Over lunch, Mayor Annise Parker told the audience touching personal stories of her own children adopted out of foster care.

We are now enjoying 7 amazing breakout sessions over 3 hours.  Only 2 more hours until the conference concludes!

 

Frankie Guzman, a Soros Fellow at the National Center for Youth Law, starts off this morning’s session with his life story of overcoming years in juvenile prison in California and later attending Berkeley and UCLA Law.  Most striking to me was the disparity in armed robbery sentences that he received as a Hispanic man (15 years) and two white women he knew (2 weeks).  Even as experienced juvenile defenders it is good to have a reminder of the potential of our young clients.  How many other young offenders could grow up to become lawyers or doctors or social workers or whatever they desire, if only given a second (or third) chance?

Later today we will hear from Professor Joseph Tulman from the University of the District of Columbia about advocating for young client’s special education needs.

At lunch Mayor Annise Parker, the mayor of Houston, will be addressing conference attendees.  So many exciting sessions this afternoon!

The Bully Effect, Anderson Cooper 360

An extraordinary documentary called “Bully” captured a behavior adults hear about, but rarely see: the way some kids pressure and relentlessly harass their peers. Filmmaker Lee Hirsch was embedded in several schools for an entire year. What he filmed was so raw and eye-opening that the project catapulted a movement, sounding the alarm about the critical and dangerous issue of bullying.

Something profound has also happened as a result. In the time since “Bully” was released, a number of kids and parents profiled in the documentary, and the filmmaker himself, have been on life-changing journeys, and in some instances have experienced remarkable transformations.

AC360° has dedicated the past year to tracing the course of their journeys and personal missions. In partnership with Cartoon Network, AC360° wants to share their stories with you in a powerful documentary called “The Bully Effect,” premiering on CNN on February 28 at 10 p.m. ET.

Adoption, Wales Online

Children in Wales are spending almost five years in care before being placed with adoptive parents, statistics released to WalesOnline show.

In Ceredigion children on average spent four years and nine months in care, which is more than twice as long as the Welsh average stay of two years and three months.

In 2011 researchers at the University of Bristol concluded instability in care “often leads to a downward spiral” of “poor educational results, unemployment and a lifetime of poverty”.

Georgia Lawmakers Take Up Ethics, Juvenile Justice, The Augusta Chronicle

Two major pieces of legislation come to the House floor this week, ethics and juvenile-justice reforms…The juvenile law rewrite has been in the works for years, and agreement has finally been reached by advocates on all sides. It would change where most troubled children are held, from state custody to county supervision.

Timberlake: For a new judge, different outlook on juvenile court, Southtown Star, Illinois

Fortunately, that lack of options has changed. The counties in my circuit were one of the four pilot areas for a new state program, Redeploy Illinois, in exchange for our promise to send 25 percent fewer young people to the prison system. 

Redeploy Illinois provided funds we needed to reach our youth before their behaviors worsened. The local stakeholders — judges, prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement and other community leaders — work together on the program. 

Redeploy Illinois has made it possible to assess and screen all youths referred by the court or probation officers. Once we know what services are appropriate to meet each youth’s needs, they attend therapy sessions, sometimes in their homes, or are sent to residential mental health or substance abuse treatment if necessary. 

Statewide, the Redeploy Illinois counties have reduced youth prison commitments by 51 percent — more than doubling the target and allowing the state to avert more than $40 million in potential incarceration costs. 

New Report: Minors in ‘Solitary’ Hallucinate, Harm Themselves, Juvenile Justice Exchange

A new report on solitary confinement of minors includes harrowing descriptions of the psychological and physical impact ‘solitary’ has on young people, as well as surprising revelations about why some authorities resort to isolating juveniles.

Michigan appeals court rules that juveniles serving mandatory life for murder won’t be freed, Detroit Free Press, Michigan

The Michigan appeals court has ruled a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ends mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of murder will not apply retroactively to teens already found guilty who have exhausted their direct appeals. That means 358 Michigan prisoners serving mandatory life sentences without parole for murders committed when they were under 18 will remain behind bars. Michigan ranks second in the country in terms of juvenile lifers…

Elementary Schoolers’ Arrests In Florida Alarm Justice Officials , The Huffington Post, The Orlando Sentinel, Florida

The spate of arrests, which includes at least nine felony charges, has alarmed Orange County’s juvenile-justice community and prompted a judge to meet with the school’s principal.
It is “ridiculous” to criminalize students for behavior that is tied to their disabilities, said Olga Telleria-Khoudmi, juvenile-division chief for the Orange/Osceola Public Defender’s Office.

Preventing the Tragedy of LGBT Youth Homelessness, Juvenile Justice Blog

One of the largest populations of homeless youth is composed of LGBT teens who have come out to their families and are then disowned and forced to leave. While 1.7 million adolescents experience at least one episode of homelessness a year, between 20-to-40 percent of that population identify as LGBT.

Children in Texas can be tried in adult criminal court under a waiver statute that permits the transfer of a juvenile to adult court after a hearing is conducted by a juvenile judge.  Tex. Fam. Code § 54.02.  On October 31, 2012 the First Court of Appeals in Houston heard a case challenging the transfer of a child, C.M.  The decision of the Court is pending.

When C.M. was only 16 years old, he was alleged to have committed a murder.  Normally the juvenile court hears cases for children under 17 years old.  However, the prosecutor in this case asked the judge to transfer the case to adult criminal court.  The hearing to determine if transfer is appropriate requires several factors about the child to be considered.  The judge in C.M.’s case failedo follow the statute’s requirements for a transfer hearing, specifically the diagnostic study requirement.  The judge ordered, but did not receive or examine a diagnostic study of C.M.  Despite this, the judge still transferred C.M. to adult criminal court.  C.M. was later found guilty in adult court.  Today, C.M. is 20 years old and incarcerated.

The First Court of Appeals has a heavy burden in making this important decision.  First, the justices have to decide if the original transfer hearing was properly conducted.  The Center for Children, Law & Policy feels it is impossible for the transfer hearing to be found proper considering that the Texas waiver law requirements were not met.  Next, the justices must determine what would be the appropriate remedy for this defect.

The Center for Children, Law & Policy firmly believes vacating C.M.’s conviction, as his attorneys are requesting, is the only appropriate outcome. The Court’s decision affectsmany other Texan children facing transfer to adult criminal court. For example, Harris County transfers an average of 78 children a year to adult criminal court.  The Center for Children, Law & Policy believes all children should have their cases heard in juvenile court.  We eagerly await the Court’s ruling.

C.M. is represented by:
Jack G. Carnegie of Strasburger & Price, LLP, John L. Hagan of Jackson, Gilmour & Dobbs, Christene Wood of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, and David Adler.

The Center for Children, Law & Policy has submitted to the First Court of Appeals a supplemental amicus brief in support of C.M.  We offered this additional information to help guide future policy for similarly situated juveniles facing transfer to adult court, especially here in Harris County, which has extraordinarily high rates of transfer to adult court.

Upon entering the courtroom with his defense attorney, the child starts waving at the judge.  When the defense attorney asks the child, “What are you doing?”  The child replied, “I’m waving my rights.”[1]

Across our country, children are being funneled through the juvenile justice system.  The majority of these children have no real understanding of the court processes they are involved in or the legal consequences that may affect not only their juvenile record, but also their lives.  Though juvenile courts are designed specifically for children, the language utilized by attorneys and judges is comparable to a foreign language to children that find themselves involved in the juvenile justice system.

Season 1, Episode 6 of the HBO series, The Wire, illustrates the type of legalese utilized in juvenile courts.[2]  At a juvenile court hearing, Bodie, a 16-year-old boy, attempts to follow the rapid-fire dialogue that is occurring between his attorneys, the prosecutor, and the judge.[3]  The judge and attorneys use terms such as “respondent,” “juvenile,” “delinquent petition,” “commitment hearing,” “assault,” “narcotics,” “transaction,” “remuneration,” “manipulated by traffickers,” and “home monitoring.”[4]  He seems to get lost in the flurry of legalese and technical terms.  Bodie seems to have no concept of what this dialogue entails, what any of these terms mean in relation to him, or the potential consequences.  He appears to leave the juvenile court hearing with no real comprehension or appreciation for the juvenile justice system.  In fact, later in the episode, he remarks to Officer Carver and Officer Herc that “the juvenile system in this city is f*#$%@ up.”[5]  These are common scenes in most juvenile courts around the country.  Though the juvenile courts are supposed to be designed specifically for children, they do not utilize language that is designed for children to understand the legal expectation placed upon them.

Scientific research and literature indicate that children do not easily comprehend abstract legal vocabulary and concepts.[6]  Even the concept of a “right” requires that the child “conceptualize a right as a legal entitlement, providing protection that authorities in the justice system cannot arbitrarily set aside.”[7]  A recent Massachusetts’ study illustrates this point.  Researchers surveyed children who pled guilty in juvenile court.[8]  Overall, the study revealed that the children were “confused and mistaken… even after the words and concepts had been explained, and even among those who had previous juvenile court experience.”[9]

Juvenile courts often confuse “being told” information for actual comprehension of the information.  This discrepancy overshadows the crucial constitutional question, “Did the [child] actually understand?”[10]  When the time is taken to discover what children actually understand, then it becomes evident that there are significant discrepancies between what is told to the child and what they actually comprehend.  For example, in that same Massachusetts’ study, children defined “disposition” as to be “positioned in a wrong place” or to be in a “bad position.”[11]

Furthermore, scientific research has also revealed that an overrepresentation of individuals with language disorders and impairments exists within the criminal and juvenile justice systems.[12]  Within the juvenile justice system, the overrepresentation rate appears even greater than in the adult criminal system.[13]  Though this paper focuses solely on juvenile offenders and juvenile courts, adult criminal systems should also consider moving away from legalese and technical terms and towards a more plain language approach in order to communicate more effectively with adult defendants.

Communication disorders are defined as “an impairment in the ability to express, understand, and/or process thoughts and information.”[14]  These types of disorders affect a child’s ability to use language effectively and “to understand longer sentences and more complex concepts.”[15]  Moreover, juvenile offenders as a group tend to be academically deficient and have lower verbal IQs than non-offending juveniles.[16]  They tend to have problems receiving and expressing verbal information.[17]  In addition, children with language deficiencies often struggle with a lack of ability to deliver effective narratives.[18]

In a recent study, juvenile offenders at the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center in Wisconsin participated in a complex battery of tests.[19]  The tests were designed to assess the juvenile’s “ability to process, understand, and utilize spoken language.”[20]  The average age of the children tested was 16 years old.[21]  The results revealed that the juvenile offenders’ “spoken language competency” consistently fell below “the bottom one percent of the population at large.”[22]  Impaired language skills affect a child’s ability to understand the court processes, communicate with their attorney, understand and comply with the conditions of their release or probation, and to successfully complete any court ordered programs.

Juvenile court judges need to recognize that the language used in their courts is not suited for children.  In addition, juvenile courts also need to realize the prevalence of language disorders and impairments among the children entering their doors.  In the juvenile court hearings that I have observed, when a child expresses confusion, juvenile court judges often attempt to clarify by repeating the question slower or louder.  If the child still expresses confusion, then the juvenile court judge will often direct the defense attorney to take the child outside of the courtroom and to provide explanation to their client.  These tactics are not effective or efficient.

Due to the high volume of cases on juvenile court dockets, efficiency is important.  Written forms can be efficient and effective if they are drafted in light of the intended reader’s actual ability to read and comprehend the language.  Researchers suggest that juvenile court forms should be drafted at “the reading grade level to that of the average user of the document.”[23]  One researcher asserts that juvenile court forms “should not exceed an 8^th grade difficulty level.”[24]

Specifically, I assert that juvenile court forms should be drafted at a 3^rd grade reading level.  In most states, the juvenile courts have jurisdiction over children that range from 10 to 17 years old.  Even older children who enter the juvenile justice system are not likely to be performing academically on grade level.  In 3^rd grade, students are usually 8 to 9 years old.  Therefore, forms at a 3^rd grade reading level are appropriate for a substantial amount of the children entering the juvenile justice system.  Judges and attorneys should also utilize dialogue that is approximately at a 3^rd grade reading level.  Instead of asking children if they understand, judges should ask the child to paraphrase the relevant information in the child’s own words.[25]  Developing and utilizing courtroom colloquies in light of the intended audience’s actual ability to comprehend would promote efficiency and effectiveness.  In addition, it might reduce recidivism among young offenders if they actually understood the expectations required of them.

---

[1]Barbara Kaban and Judith Quinlan, Trends & Developments in the Juvenile Court: Rethinking a “Knowing, Intelligent, and Voluntary Waiver” in Massachusetts’ Juvenile Courts, 5 J. Center for Fam. Child. & Cts. 35, 35 (2004) [hereinafter Kaban].
[2] The Wire (HBO Series) (Season 1, Episode 6).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] See generally, Michele LaVigne and Gregory J. Van Rybroek, Breakdown in the Language Zone: The Prevalence of Language Impairments Among Juvenile and Adult Offenders and Why It Matters, 15 U.C. Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol’y 37 (2011) [hereinafter LaVigne]; Kaban, supra note 1.
[7]LaVigne, supra note 6, at 71.
[8] Id.at 70; Kaban, supra note 1.
[9]LaVigne, supra note 6, at 72; Kaban, supra note 1.
[10]LaVigne, supra note 6, at 72.
[11]Kaban, supra note 1, at 45.
[12]LaVigne, supra note 6, at 43.
[13] Id. at 44.
[14] Id. at 49.
[15] Id. at 52.
[16] Id. at 94.
[17] Id. at 94-95.
[18] Id. at 86.
[19] Id. at 41.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 114.
[24]Kaban, supra note 1, at 48.
[25]LaVigne, supra note 6, at 117.

No Guidelines to Prevent Child Abuse in Delhi, The Times of India

In ‘Juvenile In Justice,’ Children Caught in America’s Prison System, The Daily Beast

More than 70,000 children are held in U.S. juvenile jails. Despite some changes in harsh sentencing laws, photographer Richard Ross found despair among kids stuck in the prison system.

Reconsidering Life Sentences for Juveniles Who Kill , The Huffington Post

In the wake of the Miller decision, we must be sensitive to victims’ families and try to understand their desire for retribution — but at the same time we must emphasize that imprisoning juveniles for life is not the answer.

The words of Mary Johnson, who befriended O’Shea Israel, continue to resonate:
“The young people that have been given life without parole – we need to think about them as though they are our children. Give them the opportunity — if they’ve been worked on in the prison and have worked on themselves — give them the opportunity to come out and prove themselves, as O’Shea has done.”

Think of Children as an Investment, Not an Expense, The National CASA Blog

Let’s ask all candidates for public office to stop thinking of children as an expense and start thinking of them as an investment. Perhaps the most important one we could make.

UN Aims to End Child Marriage by 2030, Associated Press