2.3Jurisdiction Over Status Offenders1
“Status offender” is the term commonly used to refer to juveniles who are alleged to fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Division pursuant to MCL 712A.2(a)(2) (runaways), MCL 712A.2(a)(3) (incorrigibles), or MCL 712A.2(a)(4) (truants). The term is also now used to refer to juveniles (sometimes referred to as “wayward minors”) who are alleged to fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Family Division and all other courts of record pursuant to MCL 712A.2(d) and MCL 764.27.
The Family Division has “[e]xclusive original jurisdiction superior to and regardless of the jurisdiction of another court in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age who is found within the county[2] if . . . the following applies:
* * *
“The juvenile has deserted his or her home without sufficient cause, and the court finds on the record that the juvenile has been placed or refused alternative placement or the juvenile and the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian have exhausted or refused family counseling.” MCL 712A.2(a)(2).
The Family Division has “[e]xclusive original jurisdiction superior to and regardless of the jurisdiction of another court in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age who is found within the county[3] if . . . the following applies:
* * *
“The juvenile is repeatedly disobedient to the reasonable and lawful commands of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian, and the court finds on the record by clear and convincing evidence that court-accessed services are necessary.” MCL 712A.2(a)(3).
The court properly assumed jurisdiction over a juvenile under MCL 712A.2(a)(3) where the juvenile was “caught smoking marijuana, had gotten into trouble for bringing a bow and arrow to school, and was arrested for committing retail fraud.” In re Weiss, 224 Mich App 37, 38-42 (1997). On appeal, the juvenile argued that he should have been charged with criminal violations or “truancy” rather than “incorrigibility” under MCL 712A.2(a)(3). In re Weiss, 224 Mich App at 39-40. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “the concept of disobeying one’s parents’ commands encompasses getting suspended from school or performing illegal acts.” Id. at 41. Although the prosecuting attorney could have charged the juvenile with criminal violations, he or she chose to charge the juvenile with general disobedience under the “incorrigibility” provision, and the court properly considered the criminal violations in deciding whether the juvenile had committed this status offense. Id.
The court has “[e]xclusive original jurisdiction superior to and regardless of the jurisdiction of another court in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age who is found within the county[4] if . . . the following applies:
* * *
“The juvenile willfully and repeatedly absents himself or herself from school or other learning program intended to meet the juvenile’s educational needs, or repeatedly violates rules and regulations of the school or other learning program, and the court finds on the record that the juvenile, the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian, and school officials or learning program personnel have met on the juvenile’s educational problems and educational counseling and alternative agency help have been sought. As used in [MCL 712A.2(a)(4)] only, ‘learning program’ means an organized educational program that is appropriate, given the age, intelligence, ability, and psychological limitations of a juvenile, in the subject areas of reading, spelling, mathematics, science, history, civics, writing, and English grammar.” MCL 712A.2(a)(4).
Truancy under MCL 712A.2(a)(4), which “specifies that a juvenile must have willfully absented himself or herself from school[,]” is not a strict liability offense; rather, “truancy [is] an act requiring repeated, willful conduct[.]” In re Napieraj, 304 Mich App 742, 747 (2014). Moreover, because MCL 712A.2(a)(4) “‘prohibits the willful doing of an act, the act must be done with the specific intent to bring about the particular result the statute seeks to prohibit.’” In re Napieraj, 304 Mich App at 746 (quoting People v Janes, 302 Mich App 34, 41 (2013), and holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the respondent’s adjudication of guilt on a charge of truancy where “[t]he referee failed to address the evidence presented on the record or make any reference to the ‘willful’ element of [MCL 712A.2(a)(4)]”) (additional quotation marks and citation omitted).
The “compulsory education statute,” MCL 380.1561, under which a child is legally required to attend a public school subject to certain exceptions enumerated in the statute,5 may be applied to children through the truancy provision of the Juvenile Code. In re Marable, 90 Mich App 7, 10-11 (1979). In the case of a child in a special education program who allegedly repeatedly violates school rules, a school board may not petition the court under MCL 712A.2(a)(4) until “administrative proceedings under the school code’s special education provisions have terminated and a final decision has been made that no program within the school system can adequately address the child’s special needs and satisfactorily develop the child’s maximum potential.” Flint Bd of Educ v Williams, 88 Mich App 8, 17 (1979).
D.“Wayward Minor” Status Offenses6
MCL 712A.2(d) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the Family Division and all other courts of record with respect to certain categories of 17-year-old criminal defendants, sometimes referred to as “wayward minors.”
MCL 712A.2(d) provides that the Family Division has concurrent jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a 17-year-old if the Family Division finds on the record that voluntary services have been exhausted or refused and the juvenile “is 1 or more of the following:
“(1) Repeatedly addicted to the use of drugs or the intemperate use of alcoholic liquors.
(2) Repeatedly associating with criminal, dissolute, or disorderly persons.
(3) Found of his or her own free will and knowledge in a house of prostitution, assignation, or ill-fame.
(4) Repeatedly associating with thieves, prostitutes, pimps, or procurers.
(5) Willfully disobedient to the reasonable and lawful commands of his or her parents, guardian, or other custodian and in danger of becoming morally depraved.” MCL 712A.2(d)(1)-(5).
1 The court must determine whether a juvenile charged with a status offense is an Indian child for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 1901 et seq., and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), MCL 712B.1 et seq. See MCL 712B.3(b)(v); MCL 712B.9(1). See Section 2.15 for a brief discussion of the additional procedural requirements that apply if a juvenile accused of a status offense is, or may be, an Indian child.
2 “As used in MCL 712A.2, a child is ‘found within the county’ . . . in which the offense committed by the juvenile occurred[] or in which the minor is physically present.” MCR 3.926(A).
3 “As used in MCL 712A.2, a child is ‘found within the county’ . . . in which the offense committed by the juvenile occurred[] or in which the minor is physically present.” MCR 3.926(A).
4 “As used in MCL 712A.2, a child is ‘found within the county’ . . . in which the offense committed by the juvenile occurred[] or in which the minor is physically present.” MCR 3.926(A).
5 Exceptions to compulsory public school attendance include attendance at a state approved nonpublic school, MCL 380.1561(3)(a), and “homeschooling,” MCL 380.1561(3)(f); MCL 380.1561(4).
6 The “wayward minor” provisions of MCL 712A.2(d) are rarely, if ever, used by the trial courts in Michigan. Consequently, there will be no further substantive discussion of these provisions in this benchbook. Note, however, that the court must determine whether a juvenile accused of being a wayward minor is an Indian child for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 1901 et seq., and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), MCL 712B.1 et seq. See MCL 712B.3(b)(v); MCL 712B.9(1). See Section 2.15 for a brief discussion of the additional procedural requirements that apply if a juvenile accused of a status offense is, or may be, an Indian child.