Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

@ffice of the Qttornep daenetal &ate of ltexas DAN MORALES August 41992 ,TTOWZk~ GLS’LRAL Mr. Ron Jackson Opinion No. DM-147 Compact Administrator Interstate Compact on Juveniles Re: Whether the Uniform Compact on Texas Youth Commission Juveniles by Texas author&s and P. 0. Box 4260 requires Texas juvenile probation officers Austin. Texas 78765 to supervise delinquent juveniles as defined by the compact who would not be defined as juvenile delinquents under chapter 51 of the Texas Family Code (RQ-106) Dear Mr. Jackson: You have requested an opinion from this office concerning the effect of the Uniform Interstate Compact on Juveniles (“the ICJ” or “the compact”) on the authority and duty of Texas juvenile probation officers to supervise individuals from other states who could not have been adjudicated as juveniles under Texas law. We conclude that the adoption of the ICJ.by Texas both authorizes and requires these officers to supervise such individuals if they are within the ICJ definition of “delinquent juvenile,” and otherwise meet the conditions of article VII of the compact. As you inform us, “[t]he purpose of [the ICT] is to establish uniform procedures for returning juvenile runaways and absconders to their homes and to provide appropriate supervision for juvenile delinquents on probation or parole who reside outside the state where they were adjudicated.” See ako Damon, Uniform Itrfersrare Compacton Juvenile-s,21 TEX. rrcW L REV. 1167 (1990).’ All fifty states ‘The InterstateCompact 011Juveniles deals with four dkthct interstate proceedii: (1) the out-of-state placement of children on juvenile probationor parole;(2) the rehun of jwcoilcs who have absmmkd from probatim parole, or aa institution to anotherstatei (3) the return from amher state Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 2 and the District of Columbia have now adopted the ICJ. Texas adopted the compact in 1965 an4 together with supplementary enactments codiliul it as chapter 25 of the Texas Family Code. See Acts 1%!!,59th Leg., ch. 324.0 1, at 676. Your question concerns article VII of the ICJ, ‘cooperative Supervision of Probationers and Parolees.’ Fpm. Code 0 25.02 In that article compact signatories agreeblparttothefollowingz (a) That the duly constituted judicial and administrative authorities of a state party to this compact (herein called Yhe sending state”) may permit any delinquent juvenile within such state, placed on probation or parole, to reside in any other state party to this compact (herein called “receiving state”) while on probation or parole, and the receiving state shall accept such delinquent juvenile, if the parent, guardian, or person entitled to the legal custody of such delinquent juvenile is residing or undertakes to reside within the receiving state.. . . A receiving state, in its discretiq may agree to accept supervision of a probationer or parolee in cases where the parent, guardian, or person entitled to the legal custody of the delinquent juvenile is not a resident of the receiving state, and If so accepted the sendii state may transfer supervision accordingly. (b) That each receiving state will assume the duties Of visitation and of supervision over any such delinquent juvenile andiatheurerciseoftboseduties~belpvanadbydrcsrmre smndadofvirifafioniuui~~fhufpTcvaa7fwitrm dehqwntjwmilcrrrlurccdonprobarionaplrrdc Fam. Code 6 U.&X(a), art.. VII(b) (emphasis added). Accordingly, in your capacity as administrator of the compact in Texas.2 you refer out-of-state “delinquent juveniles” under the ICJ to cotmty probation Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 3 departments for supervision under this provision, See 37 TAC. 0 85.43; Turas Youth Commission, 16 Tex. Reg. 4476 (1991). At least one probation department has declined to accept supervision of individuals who would not be considered delinquent juveniles under title 3 of the Texas Family Code, chapters 51 d seq. relating to delinquent children, either beatuse of their age or the offense committed. That probation department contends that its statutory authority is limited to cases within juvenile jurisdiction as de&ted in Family Code chapter 51. Chapter 142.001 of the Human Resources Code de&tea “juvenile probation service5”to mean the following: (1) services provided by or under the direction of a juvenile probation officer in rqonse to an order iwd by a juvenile cawt and under the cotof’sdireaion, includingz (A) protective services; (R) prevention of delinquent conduct and conduct indicat- ing a need for supervisiom (C) diversion; (D) informal adjustment; (E) foster care: 0 counseling; (G) supervision; and (H) diagnostic, correctional, and educational services; and (2) services provided by a juvenile probation department that is related to the operation of a juvenile detention facility. Hum. Res. Code g 142.001 (emphasis added). Under Family Code section 51.04(a), the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings in all cases involving the delinquent conduct [of a child] or conduct indicating a need for supervision engaged in by (foatuoteomtinuc4f) Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 4 aperJonwbomrsachildwithintbemeaningofthistitleatthe time be engaged in the conduct. Section Sl.Cn( 1) defines ‘child” as a parson (A) tenyearsof age or older aad under 17 years of age; or (B) seventeen years of age or older and under 18 years of age who is aUeged or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision as a result of acts committed before becoming 17 years of age. “Delinquent conduct”is defined as conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates (1) a penal law of this state punishable by imprisomnent or by confinement in jail, or (2) a raasonable and lawful order of a juvenile court entered under Section 54.04 or 54.05 of this a&, including an order prohiiiting conduct referred to in Subsection (b)(4) of this SCCtiOd Fam. Code b 51.03(a). Section 54.04(d)(l) authorizes a juvenile court to place a child found to have engaged in delinquent conduct on probation upon making the appropriate findii4 Apparently, the probation department contends that since probation services are those provided by order of a juvenile cotut, ie, a cwrt with juvenile jurisdiction, they may be provided only to those within Texas juvenile court jmisdictio& as delineated in chapter 51 of the Family Code. The corollary of this argument is that probation officers may accept supervision under the ICJ only of out-of-state probationers or parolees who could have been subject ,to juvenile court jurisdiction in Texas. We believe that this argument overlook both the nature of supervision under article VII of the ICJ and the obligations imposed by the compact. Mr. Ron Jackon - Page 5 ‘Ibe juvenile jurisdictional limb of 8 receiving state are irrelevant to its responsiiilities under article VII of the ICI. By adopting artide VII, states agree to a transfer of the duties of supervision and visitation of juvenile probationers and parolees from the authorities of the sending state to those of the receiving state, but not to a tmmferofjt4kWion. Althoughlawsandregulationsof the receivingstate determine the day-today operational matters of the probation or parole, the sending state sets the terms of probation or parole, and these are bll upon the authorities of the receiving state. 21 TEx ‘IEM L REV. 1671. The receiving state merely acts as the sending state’s agent in carrying out the terms of the foreign adjudication Artide VII thus ‘authorizes only cowtq supervision by the receiving state of probation or parole that is strnctured and enforced by the sending state.” Id. (emphasis added). In &to* jurisdiction of a case always remains with the foreign aunt that adjudicated the youth a delinquent. This point is evident in the defkition of “delinquent juvenile’ as a juvenile ‘adjudged delinquent. and ‘still subject to the jmisdictionofthc~tharharm&su&odjudica&n~ Fam.CMe~25.02,art.III (emphasis added)? If juvenile probation departments could accept supenrision only of cases referred through title 3 of the Family Code, one could argue that they could not accept any cases under the ICI, for none of those cases are adjudicated through the Texas juvenile system. Clearly, such a result would not reflect the intention of the Texas Legislature in enacting the compact as chapter 25 of the Family Code. Inste& we beIieve that the rcsponsiblltics of probation officers to “delinquent juveniles’ referred through the IU are clearly established in Family Code sections 25.02 and 25.08. The latter provision states the responsiiity of the member state to carry out compact provisions: Fam. Code 5 2!%3,ml. III. Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 6 The court& departmenu, agencies, and officers of this State anditssubdivislonsshaUtmf..thircompoacmdphoDdorJI th@appmpdetocffccruatiapqmusandintentwhichate within theii respective jurisdictiomk Faru code 0 25.08 (emphasis added). lbe jurisdiction of juvenile probation departments is the provision of juvenile services pursuant to the orders and directionofajnvenilecourt. IntbecontextoftheICI,thejuvenikeourtissuingthe order for and direct@ probation services for an individual ls the court having jurisdiction over the “delinquent juvenile” as delIned by the compact, ic the adjudicating court of the sending state. The IU thus establishes an avenue for the rendition of juvenile probation services by juvenile probation departments distinct from that delineated in title 3 of the Family Code. Set Fam. Code 0 25.02, art. XIII (once ICI is eaecuted by a state “it shall have the full force and effect of law within suclt state-). Asdisnwdabove,rrticleWaoto~determiaeswhenastatemuclaccept supervision under the IU. but also provides for a state’s voluntary acceptance of supervision in other cases. In the latter cases, the %tate’, and not the individual probation department, decides whether or not to accept supervision. We conclude that juvenile probation departments must extend their services to any case referred to them through the IU. We emphasize that once the state accepts supervision, even where such acceptance would not he mandatory under the ICI, Family Code sections 25.02 and 25.08 rquire juvenile probation officers to provide services under the compact. Ry adopting the Uniform Interstate Compact on Juveniles (the ICI) as Family Code chapter 25, the legislature autborlaed juvenile probation departments to extend their services to any case properly referred to them through the ICI, regardless of the age of the individual so referred or the nature of the adjudicating offense. Gnu the state accepts supervision of an Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 7 out-of-state delinquent juvenile under article VII of tbe ICI, Family Code section 25.08 requires juvenile probation officers to provide the mandated services. DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texas WILL PRYOR Fiit Assistant Attorney General MARYKELLER Deputy Assistant Attorney General RENEAH.IcKs Spedal Assistant Attorney General MADELEINE B. JOHNSON Chair, Opinion Committee Prepared by Faith S. Steinberg Assistant Attorney General