|
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C2-00-750
In the Matter of the Welfare of:
N.T.K., Appellant.
Filed November 28, 2000
Reversed and remanded.
Anderson, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. J798055006
William E. McGee, Fourth District Public Defender, Warren R. Sagstuen, Assistant Public
Defender, Renee J. Bergeron, Assistant Public Defender, 317 Second Avenue South, Suite 200,
Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103-2106;
and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant Hennepin County
Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
A district court's failure to make adequate written findings of fact in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(m) (Supp. 1999), and Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A), in support of a juvenile-delinquency disposition constitutes reversible error.
O P I N I O N
ANDERSON, Judge
Appellant N.T.K., a juvenile, appeals the district court's delinquency disposition order, arguing that
the evidence does not support his placement and that the district court's findings of fact are
insufficient. Because the district court's findings of fact do not adequately address the statutory
factors necessary to support the placement order as required by Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd.
1(m) (Supp. 1999), and Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A), we reverse and remand for the limited
purpose of requiring the district court to conduct an expedited review of this case and make
adequate written findings.
FACTS
In July 1998, appellant, now 17 years old, pleaded guilty to first-degree damage to property and
disorderly conduct. The district court adjudicated appellant delinquent and ordered him placed at
Woodland Hills, a residential treatment facility. In April 1999, appellant successfully completed the
program, and as part of the required program aftercare, enrolled in Katadin School, an intensive
day-treatment program. Appellant periodically disappeared from home and failed to report to
Katadin on May 3, 1999. Appellant's probation officer ordered him detained.
At a May 26, 1999 disposition hearing, appellant admitted violating his probation and committing a
new instance of disorderly conduct. On June 3, 1999, the district court adjudicated appellant
delinquent on the new charge and ordered his placement at Gateway Group Home. The group
home discharged appellant on June 6, 1999 for fighting with another resident, and the state charged
appellant with new counts of disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property. The court
adjudicated appellant delinquent based on the disorderly conduct charge. Hennepin County
probation officers regarded appellant as a risk to himself and others, and the court accepted the
probation officer's recommendation that appellant be detained and receive mental-health
evaluations. On July 19, 1999, the district court placed appellant at the David Ward Group Home.
Appellant again failed to comply with the conditions of his probation by absenting his home, failing
to comply with random urinalysis, failing to attend court-ordered counseling, and failing to take
medication. The state and appellant negotiated an agreement whereby appellant would complete a
consequence-based program and then seek work and a high-school diploma or GED while living
with and working for a family friend in Tennessee. Consistent with the probation officer's
recommendation, the district court's order provided for “stayed out of home placement to
Commissioner of Corrections at Red Wing or County Home School.”
Appellant completed the program and arrived in Tennessee on February 21, 2000. Unable to enroll
in school because he did not live with his legal guardian, appellant did not do any meaningful work
for the friend. Claiming, among other things, that he missed his mother, appellant returned to
Minnesota in early March. Upon his return to Minnesota, at the request of his probation officer, he
was taken into custody.
After two March 2000 hearings, the district court determined that appellant's departure from
Tennessee was not a probation violation, but did constitute a failed placement. The district court
lifted the stay and, based on probation's recommendation that appellant needed a
structured-consequence program, committed appellant to the corrections department juvenile
facility in Red Wing, Minnesota. The order provided that once appellant successfully completed that
program, juvenile-court jurisdiction would be dismissed.
Appellant contests the placement order, arguing that the sanction was disproportionate to his
offenses and that the court did not make the statutorily required written findings of fact.
ISSUE
Did the district court commit reversible error by failing to support appellant's Red Wing placement
with written findings of fact?
ANALYSIS
District courts are afforded broad discretion in determining appropriate juvenile-delinquency
dispositions, and we affirm dispositions that are not “arbitrary.” In re Welfare of J.A.J., 545
N.W.2d 412, 414 (Minn. App. 1996). A delinquency disposition is lawful only if necessary to the
rehabilitation of the child. Minn. Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1998). A disposition calling for
out-of-home placement must be supported by evidence that the placement is the least drastic step
necessary to restore law-abiding conduct. In re Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147, 151 (Minn.
App. 1987).
In addition, a district court ordering out-of-home placement is required to make findings of fact that
show (1) why public safety is served by the disposition; (2) why the best interests of the child are
served by the disposition; (3) what alternative dispositions were proposed to the court and why
such recommendations were not ordered; (4) why the child's present custody is not acceptable; and
(5) how the correctional placement meets the child's needs. Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(m)
(Supp. 1999); Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A).
Written findings are essential to meaningful appellate review. In re Welfare of L.K.W., 372
N.W.2d 392, 401 (Minn. App. 1985). Findings are also required to show that the district court
considered vital standards and to enable the parties to understand the court's decision. Id. at
400-401. For these reasons, we have repeatedly emphasized the importance of findings in our
many published decisions that hold inadequate juvenile disposition findings constitute reversible
error. See id. (holding insufficient findings are an independent basis for reversal); see also In re
Welfare of J.S.S., 610 N.W.2d 364, 368 (Minn. App. 2000) (reversing for failure to make
sufficient statutorily required written findings of fact); In re Welfare of C.A.W., 579 N.W.2d 494,
499 (Minn. App. 1999) (reversing where district court's findings did not address the factors
necessary to justify out-of-home placement); In re Welfare of J.A.J., 545 N.W.2d 412, 415
(Minn. App. 1996) (reversing where findings insufficient to support residential treatment); In re
Welfare of M.A.C. 455 N.W.2d 494, 499 (Minn. App. 1990) (explaining that the failure to make
statutorily required written findings warrants reversal); In re Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147,
150-51 (Minn. App. 1987) (observing that four single sentence findings with little elaboration
insufficient); In re Welfare of L.B., 404 N.W.2d 341, 346 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating insufficient
written findings constitutes reversible error even though record indicates court considered options
and had good reasons for its choice).
In this case, appellant argues and the state concedes that the district court failed to make sufficient
written findings to support the Red Wing placement. The district court found, in two sentences, that
the Tennessee “placement failed” and that the Red Wing commitment was “the least restrictive
alternative necessary to return [appellant] to law-abiding behavior.” Though these factual findings
may be read to address some of the factors and the evidence may very well ultimately support the
disposition, the findings lack the completeness required by statute and rule.
In this case, the inadequate findings prevent us from undertaking effective review of the Red Wing
placement. Mindful of the seven months appellant has already spent in the Red Wing facility, we
reverse and remand for the limited purpose of requiring the district court to undertake an expedited
review of this matter, including appellant's progress to date, and issue written findings of fact
comporting with the statutory and rule requirements.
D E C I S I O N
The district court's failure to make adequate written findings in accordance with Minn. Stat. §
260B.198, subd. 1(m) (Supp. 1999), and Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A), to support the
juvenile-delinquency disposition requires reversal and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
|