In the Interest Of: J. X. B.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: August 27, 2012
• Docket: A12A1559
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIRST DIVISION ELLINGTON, C. J., PHIPPS, P. J., and DILLARD, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

August 27, 2012

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A12A1559. IN THE INTEREST OF J. X. B., a child.

PHIPPS, Presiding Judge.

Following a hearing, 16-year-old J. X. B. was adjudicated delinquent after

admitting that he had possessed a weapon (a baseball bat) in a school safety zone, in

connection with an assault.1 The Juvenile Court of Baldwin County ordered J. X. B.

1 See OCGA § 16-11-127.1 (b) (1), which pertinently provides, with specified exceptions, that persons are prohibited from possessing within a school safety zone any weapon; “weapon” includes a bat. OCGA § 16-11-127.1 (a) (2). The hearing transcript shows, and it is undisputed, that on November 7, 2011, J. X. B. took a baseball bat to school and swung it at another student, whom he claimed had been bullying him. J. X. B. struck the student in the back and a bystander on the wrist; J. X. B. and the intended victim then wrestled on the ground before being separated by school officials. placed in the custody of the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice for 60 months,

including confinement in a secure detention facility for 12 months.2

J. X. B. appeals from the order, contending that the juvenile court erred in

ordering restrictive custody: (1) without making the specific written findings of fact

required by OCGA § 15-11-63; and (2) when the evidence did not support such a

disposition. Because the juvenile court failed to make the required specific written

findings of fact, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for the juvenile court

to make those written findings and to thereafter enter an appropriate order of

disposition.

1. OCGA § 15-11-63 (b) pertinently provides that when a juvenile is found to

have committed a “designated felony act,”3 the juvenile court’s order of disposition

must include a finding based upon a preponderance of the evidence as to whether the

juvenile requires restrictive custody. To determine whether restrictive custody is

required, the juvenile court must consider and make specific written findings of fact,

2 See generally OCGA § 15-11-63 (e) regarding restrictive custody orders and placement. 3 “Designated felony act” includes an act which constitutes a first violation of OCGA § 16-11-127.1 involving any weapon together with an assault. OCGA § 15- 11-63 (a) (2) (C.2) (i). J. X. B. does not dispute that he committed a “designated felony act” within the meaning of OCGA § 15-11-63.

2 related to the particular child, as to each of the following elements: (1) the needs and

best interests of the child; (2) the record and background of the child; (3) the nature

and circumstances of the offense, including whether any injury involved was inflicted

by the child or another participant; (4) the need for protection of the community; and

(5) the age and physical condition of the victim.4 “These findings not only provide a

meaningful legal road map for the lower court in exercising discretion in effecting a

fundamentally fair case disposition, but also assist the appellate court in its review of

the merits of an appeal.”5 Requiring specific written findings as to each essential

element benefits the lower court in its balancing process, and assists this court in

determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred in a particular case.6 “The

weight to be accorded each [element], and the ultimate decision about whether

restrictive custody is warranted, is committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile

4 OCGA § 15-11-63 (b), (c); see In the Interest of Q. S., 310 Ga. App. 70, 76-77 (2) (712 SE2d 99) (2011); In the Interest of E. D. F., 243 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 (3) (532 SE2d 424) (2000) (citing OCGA § 15-11-37, redesignated as OCGA § 15-11-63 by Ga. L. 2000, p. 20-21, §1, p. 76-77). 5 See In re S. F., 312 Ga. App. 671, 674-675 (2) (719 SE2d 558) (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted). 6 In the Interest of C. T., 197 Ga. App. 300, 304 (3) (398 SE2d 286) (1990).

3 court.”7 Notwithstanding the fact that “the extent and depth of analysis to which each

of these elements must be subjected is in large measure within the sound discretion

of the court, we [have] held that each of these elements must be specifically addressed

in writing.”8

In this case, the juvenile court utilized for its written order a pre-printed form

titled “DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF COMMITMENT FOR DESIGNATED

FELONY.” The form, which contained a combination of pre-printed text and “fill-in-

the-blank” sections, purported to include findings as to each of the required elements.

As entered by the juvenile court, the order pertinently provided the following:

In the “FINDINGS OF FACT” section of the order, under the typed heading

“NATURE OF THE OFFENSE,” the following was written in a blank space: “child

brought a baseball bat to school with the intent to use it in an assault.”

Under the heading “RECORD AND BACKGROUND” was the following pre-

printed text: “___ has the following history of delinquency and/or unruliness:___[.]”

“J. B.” was written in the first space, and “none” was written in the second space.

7 In the Interest of Q. S., supra; OCGA § 15-11-63 (b). 8 In the Interest of E. D. F., supra at 70 (3) (emphasis supplied); In the Interest of C. T., supra at 303 (3) (citing former OCGA § 15-11-37, redesignated as OCGA § 15-11-63).

4 Under the heading “AGE AND CONDITION OF THE VICTIM” was written:

“N/A.”

Under the heading “NEEDS AND BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” was

the following pre-printed text: “___ has demonstrated by his conduct a lack of respect

for authority, both parental and legal. ___ must learn to obey rules and take direction,

respect authority and establish realistic goals and expectations from himself and

society. The court, based upon the evidence, has the following concerns:________.”;

J. X. B.’s initials were written in the first two spaces, and nothing was written in the

third space.

Under the heading “NEED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE

COMMUNITY” was the following pre-printed text: “Owing to the nature of the

offense and the propensity of said minor child to commit either violent offenses or

chronic property damage offenses, the community is in need of protection from said

minor child.” Nothing was added to or deleted from that pre-printed language, nor did

the form contemplate the addition of any information under this heading.

The form concluded with pre-printed language that the court had made the

findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence and, having “duly considered the

5 foregoing factors,” found by a preponderance of the evidence “that ___ requires

restrictive custody.” J. X. B.’s name was written in the blank space.

The state asserts that the juvenile court’s order satisfied OCGA § 15-11-63 (b)

and (c) because each of the five elements was specifically included in the order, and

the juvenile court was not prohibited from entering an order using “pre[-]printed”

language “written in boilerplate fashion.” We disagree.

This specific statutory scheme was made explicit by the General Assembly to ensure that a determination as to restrictive custody, regarding a particular juvenile, would not be accomplished in an arbitrary manner, but only with fundamental fairness after the required statutory findings had been made and duly considered by the court. Moreover, our Supreme Court has held an appellate court cannot condone a violation of the statutory scheme set up by our legislature.9

Significantly, the objective of the juvenile code is to seek nonconfinement,

rehabilitation, and restoration to parental care wherever possible.10 The statutory

requirement that the juvenile court must make specific written findings of fact as to

9 In the Interest of E. D. F., supra (citing former OCGA § 15-11-37 (b) and (c), redesignated as OCGA § 15-11-63 (b), (c)) (punctuation omitted). 10 See In the Interest of Y. E., 229 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) (494 SE2d 297) (1997); T. K. v. State, 126 Ga. App. 269, 274 (1) (190 SE2d 588) (1972).

6 each of the elements in connection with its determination of whether a particular

juvenile requires restrictive custody, is consistent with that objective.

Although the juvenile court’s order listed all five elements and indicated in

boilerplate text that the court had “duly considered the foregoing factors,” the court

failed to include in the order the specificity needed to show that its decision to place

J. X. B. in restrictive custody was not arbitrary but was made after giving due

consideration to each of the required elements as they related to this particular child.

For example, the boilerplate language found under the caption “NEED FOR

THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY” contained no findings of fact specific

to J. X. B. and the act he committed, and no findings regarding why restrictive

custody was required in this case “for the protection of the community”; the court

included no findings of fact showing that J. X. B. had, as the pre-printed language

stated, a “propensity” to commit violent or chronic property damage offenses; and the

court used “either . . . or” language, not specifying which of the listed offenses J. X.

B. had a propensity to commit. Similarly, the “NATURE OF THE OFFENSE” section

included no findings of fact as to whether J. X. B. had inflicted any injuries,11 and no

11 See OCGA § 15-11-63 (b), (c) (3).

7 findings of fact regarding the “circumstances of the offense”12 when, in this case, the

circumstances preceding the juvenile’s act of bringing the bat to school seem

particularly relevant to the decision of whether restrictive custody is required.

Further, the boilerplate language found under the caption “NEEDS AND BEST

INTEREST OF THE CHILD” included no findings of fact indicating that the court

considered the specific needs or best interests of this particular child. For the most

part, the court’s order contained very general statements and conclusions, not the

specific written findings of fact required in a case involving a designated felony act

and a restrictive custody determination.

Because the juvenile court failed to make specific written findings of fact as

to each of the five elements as they pertained to J. X. B., we vacate the judgment and

remand the case for the juvenile court to consider each element as it pertains to this

particular child, and to enter appropriate written findings of fact addressing each

element, after which an appropriate order of disposition shall be entered.13

12 Id. 13 See In the Interest of E. D. F., supra; In the Interest of S. P., 240 Ga. App. 827, 829 (2) (525 SE2d 403) (1999); In the Interest of C. T., supra at 303-304 (3).

8 2. In light of the foregoing, we do not address J. X. B.’s remaining challenge

to the juvenile court’s order.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Ellington, C. J., and

Dillard, J., concur.