Members Present: Judge William Herauf, Chair via phone Justice Mary Muehlen Maring Judge Dan Narum Judge David Reich Judge Doug Mattson via phone Scott Hopwood, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 4
Guests: Brad Seville, Juvenile Court Officer Association Cory Pedersen, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 3 Karen Kringlie, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 2 Shawn Peterson, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 1
Judge Herauf called the meeting to order. A motion was made by Judge Narum to approve
the January 18, 2013, minutes, as amended. The motion was seconded by Judge Reich,
motion carried.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to submit Administrative Rule 35 as amended to the
Supreme Court for approval, seconded by Judge Mattson, motion carried.
Judge Herauf briefed the Juvenile Policy Board on the Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction in the
legislature. EJJ came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a do not pass 5-2 vote.
SB 2320
Mr. Hentzen briefed the Board on SB2320 relating to the release of juvenile records and other
information to schools. The bill specifically pertains to DJS records and law enforcement
records. School administrators and principals are wanting to know who the registered sex
offenders are in their schools. Lisa Bjergaard from DJS testified against the bill. No action was
taken, however a few committee members thought the bill was too broad and included other
offenses. Expectations are to have the bill amended to pertain to registered sex offenders and to
not include other offenses.
The legal counsel from DJS is opposed to the bill due to the file consisting of their records and
the confidentiality of them being juveniles. Judge Herauf is concerned about the confidentiality
of the juvenile, as well. Judge Mattson shared there will be an obligation to reveal the records if
the child transfers from one city to another. It was asked that Mr. Hentzen keep this committee
apprised of the outcome of this bill.
Policy 400 Series
Ms. Kringlie updated the Board on the following policy changes:
Policy 401 - Screening and Testing Juveniles for Drug and Alcohol Use - The language has been
updated to match the process. Page 1 is more specific on how to use drug testing and connecting
kids with treatment and identifying treatment needs. The Policy Board has never established in
depth procedures and training for drug testing, it has primarily been the supervisors who train
their own staff. Added language under Procedures reads: A. “Juvenile Court Officers in each
office shall provide the necessary training to new staff in the proper collection and testing
methods for all types of drug and alcohol testing.”
A motion was made by Judge Mattson to approve Policy 401, seconded by Judge Narum,
motion carried.
Policy 402 - Juvenile Court Records - Confidential - “Working files” was added to the Policy as
this is sometimes confusing due to juvenile court office files and sometimes pertains to only the
clerk of court files, but the intent is to apply to also state “working probation office files”. On
Page 2 the reference was added to the relatively new juvenile rules of procedure, which weren’t
in existence of the time the policy was written.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to approve Policy 402, seconded by Judge Narum.
Justice Maring proposed suggested changes, as discussed.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to add the changes suggested, seconded by Judge
Narum, motion carried.
A motion was carried to approve Policy 402, as amended.
Policy 404 - Restitution and Community Service - On Page 1 under General, the language was
updated to the way it is being used for victims and communities. Under Determination of
Restitution Owed, language was added about offender accountability conferencing. This is a
service that is contracted through Lutheran Social Services statewide to provide as a diversion
program. When there are cases with complicated restitution LSS meets with the victims and the
offenders and they often come up with a restitution amount that can be considered either as a
diversion or may come out of a formal or information court hearing. If the child is ordered to
participate in offender accountability, the program can determine the restitution amount in
conjunction with the victim. Page 2 under Fiscal Accountability, it is made clear that the offices
are not accepting cash or checks. Staff are not bonded and do not want to keep cash boxes in the
offices. In the Best Practices Manual restitution is accepted in the form of a money order and is
then recorded and entered into a data base. The Juvenile Court will not collect money for
insurance companies, banks or credit card companies.
Justice Maring and Shawn Peterson proposed suggested changes, as discussed.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to add the changes suggested, seconded by Judge
Narum, motion carried.
A motion was carried to approve Policy 404, as amended.
Policy 405 - Detention - Policy 405 under the Juvenile Rules of Procedure, the language
excluding weekends and holidays was struck because rule 2 of the rules of procedure doesn’t use
that language any longer. If a child is to remain in detention beyond 60 days, another detention
hearing be held to review whether or not they need to continue to be held, also asking at each
detention hearing that the court review that alternatives were considered or if there were lesser
restrictive means. This would be good practice to add a review since juveniles aren’t entitled to
bond or bail or any other way to be released.
Justice Maring proposed suggested changes, as discussed.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to add the changes suggested, motion approved.
A motion was carried to approve Policy 405, as amended.
Policy 407 - Alternatives to Detention - This policy changed to “Alternatives to Detention”
because there are many ways to ensure the community is safe and have the child out of detention.
As technology changes this needs to be broader because of the different ways to monitor youth
on house arrest. An “Intent” paragraph was added to explain the intentions and that the most
appropriate level of care is given in each case and that preference is given to non-secure
alternatives provided the community could be safe. There are different means and methods used
for house arrest. House arrest is monitored by an electronic device and is limited to two weeks,
unless extended by the court. Research tends to show that long time periods of house arrest
become ineffective. These should include intense short periods of time.
Judge Reich and Justice Maring proposed suggested changes, as discussed.
Justice Maring asked the definition of a predefined order. Ms. Kringlie explained that sometimes
in a detention order it may say house arrest, but allowed to leave for appointments for an
evaluation and there may be exceptions to the house arrest. It may also say if sometimes house
arrest is violated, youth will be immediately picked up and detained.
Judge Reich suggested that the policy should be consistent with either using “juvenile” or using
“child” or “children”.
It was proposed by Judge Reich to use “Child” or “Children” throughout the Policy,
seconded by Judge Narum.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to add the changes suggested, motion approved.
A motion was carried to approve Policy 407, as amended.
Policy 408 - Juvenile Court Officers Shall Not Sign Petitions - Across the state, petitions are not
filed to revoke probation. There is an affidavit to review, not a petition to revoke.
A motion was made by Judge Reich to approve Policy 408, seconded by Judge Narum,
motion carried.
Policy 409 - Juvenile Court Time Standards - Page 1 under Note: This is a question the Juvenile
Court Directors are asking of the Board whether or not detention orders can be longer than 14
days. By practice in some courts, detention orders are 14 days long because under the statute if
someone is held securely, there has to be a hearing within 14 days. Previously, there were cases
such as GSI or other type of cases where evaluations are ordered and the child is still a risk to the
community and are held longer in detention. The order is then reviewed every 14 days. In the
Rules of Juvenile Procedure the intent is that the entire case be wrapped up in 14 days, but if
there is an evaluation at the state hospital to determine the competency, it does not comply.
Justice Maring asked generally how long to wait for an evaluation? Ms. Kringlie responded that
it can take up to 90+ days. There have been cases where there is extensive discovery and waiting
for the police to come back with holistic reports and some of the cases are held for longer time
periods. This policy sets out time standards for processing cases. A violation is not a cause for
dismissal of the case. The question is whether or not can there be a 90 day detention order
issued?
Shawn Peterson shared that if the juvenile is held in detention, they have to have an initial
appearance on the petition within 14 days. It doesn’t mean that it needs to be concluded within
the 14 days.
Policy 405 concerns detention hearings and it was discussed whether or not that should be
inserted into Policy 405 or under Policy 409 because of the time frame section.
After discussion, in Policy 405 there was an addition that if the case is not disposed within 60
days, then an additional detention hearing would be held. In Policy 409 if the child is placed in
detention the recommendation is that the entire matter be wrapped up in 60 days. At least if
someone is in detention for more than 2 months there would be one more hearing.
Justice Maring suggested that in Policy 409 something should be added to refer back to Policy
405 that if it goes beyond the 60 days there would be a reference to Policy 405.
Justice Maring proposed suggested changes, as discussed.
A motion was made by Justice Maring to add the changes suggested, seconded by Judge
Narum, motion carried.
Judge Herauf asked in regards to continuing detention orders, is this a proposal on whether or
not it should go into Policy 409? Ms. Kringlie replied it was a concern and is wondering if it is a
violation of the Policy if there is a 90 or 100 day detention order. Ms. Palsgraaf suggested to add
“Refer to Policy 405, for extending detention beyond 60 days, which is a reference point that the
child were held beyond 2 months would be entitled to another hearing.”
A motion was made by Judge Narum to add the changes suggested, seconded by Judge
Reich, motion carried.
A motion was carried to approve Policy 409, as amended.
Juvenile Director’s Report
Scott Hopwood shared the Juvenile Director’s met and finished up the Best Practices Manual and
would like to submit to this Board for review. They also are working on the juvenile annual
report and when it is completed, every member of the Board will receive a copy.
Judge Herauf thanked everyone for the hard work on updating the Policy 400 series.
Next meeting is scheduled April 5, 2013 at 1:30pm in Bismarck.