In re Ellery C., 32 N.Y.2d 588 (1973)

A child adjudicated as a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) cannot be confined in a state training school alongside juvenile delinquents.

Summary

This case addresses whether a child adjudicated a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) can be confined in a state training school alongside juvenile delinquents. The New York Court of Appeals held that it is improper to confine a PINS child in an institution where juvenile delinquents are confined because the PINS statute was created to distinguish between children who commit criminal acts and those who merely misbehave. The court emphasized that confinement with juvenile delinquents does not constitute appropriate supervision or treatment for a PINS child and may lead to further criminal behavior.

Facts

Ellery C., a 16-year-old, was adjudicated a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) based on his mother’s application. After about a year, the Family Court, acting on the Probation Department’s recommendation, sent him to the New York State Training School at Otisville. Attempts to place Ellery elsewhere had been unsuccessful. The training school housed both PINS children and juvenile delinquents.

Procedural History

The Family Court (Kings County) ordered Ellery C. to be sent to the New York State Training School at Otisville. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s disposition by a divided vote.

Issue(s)

Whether a child adjudicated as a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) can be confined in a state training school alongside juveniles convicted of committing criminal acts.

Holding

No, because confining a PINS child with juvenile delinquents is inconsistent with the purpose of the PINS statute, which aims to provide supervision and treatment, not punitive confinement in a prison-like environment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the PINS statute (L. 1962, ch. 686) was enacted to distinguish between juvenile delinquents (who commit criminal acts) and PINS children (who merely misbehave in ways that would not be objectionable if the actor were not a minor). The court emphasized that the Family Court Act differentiates between dispositional hearings for delinquency cases (involving supervision, treatment, or confinement) and PINS cases (involving supervision or treatment). The omission of “confinement” for PINS children was intentional. The court quoted the dissenting opinion below, stating that confinement with adjudicated juvenile delinquents in a prison environment “can hardly, in any realistic sense, serve as ‘supervision’ and ‘treatment’ for him. On the contrary, it may well result in his emerging from his incarceration well tutored in the ways of crime.” The court rejected the argument that the training school was the only available facility, stating that even if true, it would not justify confining a PINS child with juvenile delinquents. The court noted that proper facilities must be made available to provide adequate supervision and treatment for PINS children. The court also distinguished Matter of Tomasita N., 30 N.Y.2d 927, stating that the court elected not to address the propriety of placing the youngster in a training school because she had already been released prior to the decision.