History

     Representative Lynn Westmoreland of the 86th district’s interest in this legislation arose from a situation involving a constituent’s 16-year-old daughter.[1] The girl had difficulties in school and had general behavioral problems.[2] She was held back from promotion to the next grade level and was frequently in trouble.[3]

     The daughter told her mother of her intent to leave home once she turned 17.[4] After the daughter turned 17, the two had a fight, leading to the police threatening to prosecute the mother for unlawfully restraining her daughter.[5] The mother thought that she was acting lawfully in preventing her 17-year-old daughter from leaving, but she was not.[6]

     According to Representative Westmoreland, the mother only wanted to provide her daughter with counseling.[7] The mother sought help from the juvenile courts, only to find that the juvenile courts lacked jurisdiction over a 17-year-old individual not classified as a “deprived child.”[8] To meet the statutory definition of a deprived child, a juvenile must be “without proper parental care” or supervision.[9]

     Frequently, the juvenile courts see parents brought into court under a deprivation complaint, only to discover that the parents have not neglected the child but have only failed in their good-faith efforts to control and supervise the child.[10] These parents often request court assistance in obtaining help for the child.[11] If a child is under the age of 17, the Code authorizes the juvenile court to order counseling, detention, or other supervisory control.[12] However, if the child is 17 years old, the court lacks jurisdiction unless it declares the child a deprived child.[13] The court is then faced with either (a) declaring a juvenile a deprived child, despite evidence that the child’s parents have earnestly tried to care for the child or (b) turning the child away from the juvenile court system.[14]

     Representative Westmoreland introduced a bill in 1999 to redefine “child” in the Juvenile Proceedings Chapter of Title 15 to include 17-year-old individuals.[15] Representative Westmoreland’s bill also provided for changes to related Code sections 15-11-5, 15-11-5.1, 15-11-37, 15-11-39, 15-11-49, and 15-11-65.[16] However, juvenile court representatives resisted this change because of the anticipated increased caseload, and the bill died in committee.[17]

HB 470

     Representatives Stephanie Benfield, Lynn Westmoreland, Mack Crawford, Pat Gardner, and Mary Margaret Oliver of the 56th, 86th, 91st, 42nd, and 56th districts, respectively, sponsored HB 470.[18] The bill was introduced on February 18, 2003, and the Speaker assigned the bill to the House Judiciary Committee.[19] As introduced, the bill redefined “child” in Code section 15-11-2 to include individuals under the age of 18.[20] The bill also contained language affecting the juvenile courts’ jurisdiction under Code sections 15-11-4, 15-11-28, 15-11-30.2, 15-11-48, 15-11-62, 15-11-63, and 15-11-73.[21]

House Judiciary Committee Substitute

     The House Committee amended the bill by substitute to delete all references to Code sections other than Code section 15-11-2 and to remove the redefinition of a child in paragraph (2)(A).[22] Though that definition no longer included 17-year-old children, the House Committee substitute proposed to expand the definition of a child under Code paragraph 15-11-2(2)(C) to include a child alleged to be a deprived child or alleged to be a status offender.[23] A status offender, as defined by Code subsection 15-11-2(11), is a child charged with “an offense that would not be a crime if it were committed by an adult.”[24] The House Committee favorably reported the substituted bill on March 4, 2003.[25]

     Representative Benfield presented the House Committee substitute to the House on March 6, 2003.[26] In a brief address, Representative Benfield explained the discrepancy in the law between deprivation actions and delinquency violations, as well as the reason redefining child across the board to include all individuals under the age of 18 would not be practical.[27] There were no questions directed to Representative Benfield, and the House passed the bill by a vote of 150 to 1.[28]

     The bill was introduced in the Senate on March 24, 2003, and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.[29] The Senate Committee favorably reported the bill without amendment on April 11, 2003.[30] Senator Charles C. Clay of the 37th district addressed the Senate regarding HB 470 on April 17, 2003, fielding one question from Senator Peg Blitch of the 7th district, who asked Senator Clay to explain the meaning of “status offender.”[31] The Senate passed the bill unanimously.[32]

The Act

     The Act amends Code section 15-11-2 to expand the definition of a child to include alleged status offenders under the age of 18.[33] Code section 15-11-2 defines individuals who fall under the juvenile courts’ jurisdiction.[34]

     Before the Act’s passage, Code section 15-11-2 defined a child as an individual who is either: (1) under the age of 17, (2) “[u]nder the age of 21 . . . who committed an act of delinquency before reaching the age of 17” and was placed under the supervision of the judicial system, or (3) under the age of 18 and alleged to be a deprived child.[35] The Act adds language to the Code paragraph 15-11-2(2)(C) definition of “child” to include an individual “[u]nder the age of 18 years, if alleged to be a ‘deprived child’ or a ‘status offender’ as defined by this Code section.”[36]

     Status offenses which 17-year-olds can be charged with include: (1) running away from home, (2) unruly behavior, (3) curfew violations, and (4) habitual disobedience of parents.[37] Prior to the Act’s passage, juvenile courts lacked jurisdiction over a 17-year-old individual exhibiting this type of behavior unless the child was already under the juvenile courts’ supervision or could be declared a deprived child.[38]

     The Honorable Gregory Adams, Chief Judge of the DeKalb County Juvenile Court, predicted that the Act would increase the number of runaway and unruly child cases brought before the juvenile courts.[39] Judge Adams considered the bill to be good legislation that will allow the juvenile courts to provide more services to families.[40]

John Giannini