In re Jazmin A., 14 N.Y.3d 440 (2010)
Absent the filing of a violation of probation (VOP) petition, the Family Court lacks the statutory authority to remand a juvenile to detention after the juvenile has been placed on probation.
Summary
Jazmin A., a 14-year-old, was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation. After a poor probation report citing missed school and curfew violations, the Family Court remanded her to detention without a VOP petition. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the Family Court lacked the authority to detain her absent a VOP petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Family Court Act does not authorize detention of a juvenile probationer before a VOP petition is filed, and continuing jurisdiction does not expand the court’s powers beyond those authorized by statute. This case clarifies the limits on Family Court’s power to detain juveniles already on probation.
Facts
Jazmin A., age 14, threatened her mother with a knife and injured her stepfather. She was adjudicated delinquent based on unlawful possession of a weapon and placed on probation under the Bronx Juvenile Accountability Court (JAC) program. Conditions of probation included obeying her parents, observing curfew, attending school, and submitting to drug testing. At her first monitoring hearing, the probation report was unfavorable; she had missed school and violated curfew. The Family Court remanded her to the custody of the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice.
Procedural History
The Family Court remanded Jazmin to detention on April 16, 2008. Jazmin appealed the detention order. The Appellate Division reversed and vacated the Family Court’s order on May 19, 2009. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, certifying the question of whether its reversal of the Family Court’s order was proper. The Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction despite the mootness of the case and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Family Court has the authority to remand a juvenile to detention after an order of disposition placing the juvenile on probation, but before a violation of probation petition has been filed.
Holding
No, because the Family Court Act does not empower the Family Court to order detention of a juvenile probationer before the filing of a VOP petition.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the specific junctures in a delinquency proceeding where the Family Court is authorized to remand a juvenile to detention, as outlined in Article 3 of the Family Court Act, including after a pre-petition hearing, at the initial appearance, after a probable cause hearing, and after a VOP petition is filed. The Court noted the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Family Court to order detention before a VOP petition is filed. The court stated, “Because the Legislature did not similarly empower Family Court to order detention of a juvenile probationer before the filing of a VOP petition, we are unwilling to imply such authority in the absence of a statutory peg.” The Court rejected the presentment agency’s argument that Jazmin had consented to detention, finding no valid waiver of the VOP petition requirement. The Court further dismissed the argument that the monitoring hearing was an “adjournment” of the “initial appearance,” clarifying that a probation compliance check is distinct from the initial appearance on the underlying delinquency petition. The court emphasized that continuing jurisdiction does not grant the Family Court authority to act beyond the powers authorized by Article 3 of the Family Court Act.