Brief(1)
S.B. 103 makes the following changes to the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code.
The bill in regard to dual adjudication amends current law (when a youth is both a child-in-need-of-care and a juvenile offender) to provide that if a juvenile offender, at the time of sentencing, is in an out-of-home placement under the Child in Need of Care Code, the sentencing court may order the continued placement of the juvenile as a child-in-need of care (under the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS)) unless the youth was adjudicated for a felony or a second, or subsequent, misdemeanor. In which case, the continued placement cannot be ordered unless the court finds there are compelling circumstances in the best interest of the juvenile that the SRS placement be continued. If the foster placement refuses to continue with the juvenile, the court shall not order continued placement as a child-in-need-of-care. If a placement with SRS is continued after sentencing, the Secretary shall not be responsible for any costs of sanctions imposed under this code.
If a juvenile offender is placed in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Authority, SRS shall not be responsible for furnishing services ordered in the child-in-need-of-care proceeding during the time of the placement under the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code.
The bill authorizes juvenile community corrections officers to take juveniles into custody. Custody is defined to include detention of a juvenile or the arrest or detention of a juvenile in a facility for holding persons charged or adjudicated as a juvenile offender.
The bill requires the court at the hearing on a notice to prosecute the youth as an adult or under the extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution hearing, to inform the juvenile of his or her rights and other information including: the nature of the charges; the right to be presumed innocent; the right to trial without unnecessary delay and to confront and cross-examine witnesses; the right to subpoena witnesses; the right of the respondent to testify or to decline to testify; and the sentencing alternatives the court may select as the result of the juvenile being prosecuted under an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution.
The bill permits a court to place an offender in a juvenile detention facility even if one of the criteria for placement has not been found to exist after consultation with the prosecutor and the intake and assessment worker.
A juvenile may be taken directly to a sanctions house for a verifiable probation violation and may be detained for no more than 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, before court review of the placement. The court and all other interested parties must be notified of the sanctions house placement.
The placement matrix is amended to provide that when the offense, which if committed by an adult, would increase the adult sentence from a misdemeanor to a felony, the prior juvenile misdemeanor adjudications shall increase the current adjudication to a felony. Further, the law is clarified to state the placements under the matrix are not mandatory but discretionary with the court. In establishing an appropriate sentence for a juvenile offender, in addition to reviewing the offense committed, the court may also evaluate the individual treatment needs of each juvenile offender.
The existence of the Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight is extended from December 1, 1999 to December 1, 2003.
Intake and assessment workers may make recommendations to prosecutors regarding immediate intervention programs which may benefit the juvenile. The Commissioner may adopt rules and regulations which allow local juvenile intake and assessment programs to create a risk assessment tool, as long as such tool meets the mandatory reporting requirements established by the Commissioner. Parents, guardians, and juveniles may access the juvenile intake and assessment programs on a voluntary basis. The parent or guardian shall be responsible for the costs of any such program utilized.
Background
The bill was recommended by the Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight.
The dual adjudication language adopted by the Senate Committee in Section 1 was a result of efforts by SRS, the Juvenile Justice Authority, and the Office of Judicial Administration to reach an agreement on acceptable language.
1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html