Case Summaries: Juveniles
Victims Fear of Future Harm Is Insufficient To Justify DV-related Delinquency Adjudication
The court of appeals reversed the juvenile courts delinquency adjudication of a juvenile for committing domestic violence because there was no threat of imminent physical harm. After an argument with his aunt and the arrival of a police officer, the juvenile defendant, who lived in the custody of his aunt/guardian, told his aunt in the presence of the police officer, if you dont get me out of here, Im gonna kill you. The nephew had Spina Bifida and two club feet. The court of appeals found that the aunt was not in fear of imminent physical harm from her nephew because she had admitted that she was not afraid of her nephew once she had his cane in her possession (which she did), she knew her nephew was immobilized without his cane and would only be able to walk a short distance, her nephew had no knives or guns in his possession that he could have used to harm her, and her fears were based on the fact that her nephew might attempt to harm her once the police officer left the residence. Fear of future harm does not satisfy the imminent threat of physical harm element of domestic violence in R.C. 2919.25(C). Moreover, the nephews statement was merely a conditional threat because he did not intend to harm his aunt unless he was left alone with her. Accordingly, the juvenile court should have granted the nephew-defendants motion to dismiss the CPO petition because there was no fear of imminent harm and the threat against his aunt was conditional. In the Matter of Jenkins, 2004 WL 1152853, 2004-Ohio-2657, No. 2003CA00330 (5th Dist., Stark, 3/24/2004).
Keywords: elements,danger
Date: 4/1/2005
Juvenile May Not Be Charged With DV
The Ohio domestic violence statute, R.C. 2919.25, applies to juvenile as any other criminal provision applies to a juvenilethat is, as a possible source of an allegation of delinquency in juvenile court, and not as part of any possible criminal proceeding. Because a proceeding against a juvenile in juvenile court is not a criminal proceeding, such a proceeding cannot be the basis for a temporary protection order under R.C. 2919.26. The preferred arrest provision of R.C. 2935.03(B)(3)(b) does not apply to juveniles. A child who is alleged to be delinquent because of a domestic violence offense may be placed in any setting authorized by R.C. 2151.312(A). Ohio Attorney General Opinion 96-061 (11/21/96).
Keywords: minors, juveniles, minor perpetrators
Date: 4/23/2002
Juveniles Who Commit DV
R.C. 2919.25, which prohibits domestic violence, applies to a juvenile as any other criminal provision applies to a juvenile - that is, as a possible source of an allegation of delinquency in juvenile court, and not as part of any possible criminal proceeding. The provisions of R.C. 2935.03(B)(3)(b) establishing arrest as the preferred course of action in domestic violence situations are not applicable to juveniles. If a peace officer determines that the detention or shelter care of a child appears to be required as provided in R.C. 2151.31 (C) and Juvenile Rule 7(A), the peace officer is required by to bring the child to the court or deliver the child to a place of detention or shelter rare designated by the court. Because a proceeding against a juvenile in juvenile court is not a criminal proceeding, such a proceeding cannot be the basis for a temporary protection order issued under R.C. 2919.26. 1996 Ohio Op. Atty. Gen. No. 96-061.
Keywords: preferred arrest
Date: 4/23/2002
Juvenile In Contempt
When a 17-year old choked and kicked the mother of his child in violation of a protection order, a criminal contempt sentence is not inconsistent with the goals of state's juvenile laws. Interest of S.D.L., 568 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 1997).
Keywords: minors, juveniles, minor perpetrators
Date: 4/23/2002
Teen Entitled To Protection order Against Parent
The 14-year-old daughter of divorce parents has right to obtain a protection order to prevent her non-custodial father from physically abusing her during visits at his home. Other remedies for child suggested by the trial judge who dismissed her action lack the immediacy provided by domestic abuse law, so appeals court reversed dismissal, ordered full hearing and appointment of guardian ad litem if necessary. Beerman v. Beerman, No 19584 (S. Dakota Supreme Court 2/12/98) 23 FLR 1195.
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
