Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.08
As amended through October 28, 2024
Subdivision 1. Generally. Rule 15.08 governs the procedure to be followed when any party, including the court, seeks modification of a disposition.
Subd. 2. Modification by Agreement. A disposition may be modified by agreement of all the parties, either in writing or on the record. All agreements to modify a disposition must be approved by the court, and the court may order the parties to appear at a hearing to examine the merits of the modification and verify the voluntariness of the agreement on the record.
Subd. 3. Motion for Modification. All modification proceedings, shall be commenced by the filing of a motion or petition to modify the disposition. The motion for modification shall be in writing and shall be served and filed along with accompanying attachments, if any, in accordance with Rule 27. The motion or its attachments shall state the proposed modification and the facts and circumstances supporting such a modification.
Subd. 4. Written Request for Modification. If a child is not represented by counsel, the child or the child's parent may submit to the court a written request for modification and send a copy of the written request to the prosecuting attorney.
Subd. 5. Good Cause. Within ten (10) days of filing a motion or written request, the court shall determine from the written request or motion and accompanying attachments, if any, whether there is good cause to believe that a modification of the disposition is warranted under Rule 15.08, subdivision 8. If the court finds that good cause exists the court shall schedule a modification hearing within ten (10) days of such finding and issue a notice in lieu of summons or a summons in accordance with Rule 15.08, subdivision 6(A). If the court finds that good cause does not exist, the court shall issue an order denying the motion or written request for modification.
Subd. 6. Summons and Warrant.
Subd. 7. Hearing.
Subd. 8. Grounds for Modification. The court may order modification of the disposition after a hearing upon a showing that there has been a substantial change of circumstances such that the original disposition is:
The modification order shall comply with Rule 15.05, subdivisions 2 and 3.
Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.08
The disposition for a child who has been designated an extended jurisdiction juvenile is also governed by Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.10. Dispositional choices are enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subds. 1 and 2 (2002). Probation revocation proceedings for a child who has been designated an extended jurisdiction juvenile are governed byMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.11.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.02, subd. 3 is intended to address the deficiency noted by various appellate decisions that the juvenile rules do not specify a sanction for violation of the time limits in this rule. See In re Welfare of C.T.T., 464 N.W.2d 751, 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 1991); In re Welfare of J.D.K., 449 N.W.2d 194, 196 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
The juvenile court and court personnel should make every effort to utilize culturally-specific evaluation and assessment programs whenever predisposition reports for juveniles are ordered underMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.03. The juvenile court should also keep in mind possible cultural issues and biases when evaluating predisposition reports, particularly when a culture-specific evaluation program is not available. See Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System, Final Report p. 46-47, 104, 108 (1994).
Before placing a child in a secure treatment facility the court may conduct a subjective assessment to determine whether the child is a danger to self or others or would abscond from a nonsecure facility or if the child's health or welfare would be endangered if not placed in a secure facility; conduct a culturally appropriate psychological evaluation which includes a functional assessment of anger and abuse issues; and conduct an educational and physical assessment of the juvenile. See Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 4 (2002).
When the child has counsel, counsel has the right and the duty to appear at and participate in the disposition hearing.
As a matter of due process, the child has the absolute right to call and cross-examine the authors of any reports, object to the competency of the evidence contained in the reports, and otherwise respond to any adverse facts contained therein. See In re Welfare of N.W., 405 N.W.2d 512, 516-17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (citing Scheibe v. Scheibe, 241 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1976); VanZee v. VanZee, 226 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1974); Stanford v. Stanford, 123 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1963)).
The child and other participants in the disposition hearing have the right to cross-examine the authors of any written report. However,Rules 15.03and15.04 do not mandate that the authors appear at the disposition hearing. Counsel may subpoena the authors of written reports for purposes of cross-examination.
UnderMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.05, subd. 1, the decision to either adjudicate the child or grant a continuance without adjudication and the choice of disposition shall be made at the same time and in a single dispositional order. Accord Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 21.03, subd. 1. The purpose of this rule is to eliminate multiple appeals. Because both an adjudicatory order and a dispositional order are final, appealable orders, if the court adjudicates the child or grants a continuance without adjudication and then enters a dispositional order at a later date, the child is forced to appeal twice: once from the adjudicatory order and once from the dispositional order. By requiring the court to defer the adjudicatory decision until the time of disposition, the child can appeal both orders at the same time in one appeal.
Requiring that the adjudicatory decision be deferred until the time of disposition should also eliminate the problem that arose in In re Welfare of M.D.S., 514 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). There, the juvenile court entered an order finding that the allegations of the petition had been proved. The order also stated that adjudication was withheld but only for the purpose of transferring the case to the child's home county for disposition and further proceedings. The child attempted to appeal the order finding that the allegations of the petition had been proved. The appellate court held that the order was not appealable because it neither adjudicated the child delinquent nor finally determined that adjudication was withheld. Because the juvenile court is prohibited from adjudicating the child or granting a continuance without adjudication until the time of disposition underMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.05, subd. 1, it should be clear that there can be no appeal of the finding that the allegations of the charging document have been proved until after the court enters a dispositional order.
An order adjudicating a child delinquent prior to disposition is ineffective and not appealable. But the order becomes appealable as part of the disposition once a dispositional order is made. See In re Welfare of G.M., 533 N.W.2d 883, C9-95-812 (Minn. Ct. App. July 3, 1995).
A copy of the order adjudicating a child delinquent for committing felony-level criminal sexual conduct should be forwarded to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension by the court in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subd. 2(a) (2002).
Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 1 (2002) requires written findings on disposition in every case. Although this statute seemingly invades the province of the judiciary to govern its own procedures. Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A) reiterates the statutory principle.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B) recites some of the general principles relating to dispositions that have developed under Minnesota law.
a. The content ofMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B) is largely derived from Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.001, subd. 2 (2002); Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 1 (2002); In re Welfare of A.R.W. & Y.C.W., 268 N.W.2d 414, 417 (Minn. 1978) cert. denied 439 U.S. 989 (1978); In re Welfare of D.S.F., 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 17, 1988); and In re Welfare of L.K.W., 372 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). See also Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association, Juvenile Justice Standards: Standards Relating to Dispositions (1980). This rule does not create any substantive standards or limit the development of the law but is intended to assist the court when choosing a disposition by focusing on those standards that are already part of established Minnesota law. The court is not required to make findings on each of these factors in every case, although such findings may be helpful in contentious cases.
b. The overriding purpose in every juvenile delinquency disposition, declared by statute, is to "promote the public safety and reduce juvenile delinquency by maintaining the integrity of the substantive law prohibiting certain behavior and by developing individual responsibility for lawful behavior." Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.001, subd. 2 (2002). This statute and another declare the means to be employed by the juvenile court to serve its public safety purpose. First, the purpose of the court "should be pursued through means that are fair and just, that recognize the unique characteristics and needs of children, and that give children access to opportunities for personal and social growth." Id. Second, the court is to employ dispositions that are "deemed necessary to the rehabilitation of the child." Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 1(2002). Each judicial district, after consultation with local county attorneys, public defenders, corrections personnel, victim advocates, and the public, is required to have written criteria for determining delinquency dispositions develop by September 1, 1995. See 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 576, section 59.
Where appropriate, the court should make every effort to use any available culturally-specific programs when making a disposition for a juvenile. The court should also be aware of racial disparities in dispositions among similarly situated juveniles, particularly for those offenses which have historically resulted in more severe sanctions for minorities. See Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System, Final Report p. 103-04, 108-09.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.05, subd. 3 provides that a dispositional order that transfers legal custody of the child under Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 1(c) (2002) shall be for a specified length of time. See Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 9 (2002).
The duration of a disposition that transfers custody of the child to the Commissioner of Corrections pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 1(d) (2002) is determined by the Commissioner. See In re Welfare of M.D.A., 237 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1975).
"Withholding of adjudication" was redesignated as "continuance without adjudication" to conform with the statutory language of Minnesota Statutes, section 260.185, subd. 3 (1994). Continuance without adjudication is now authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 7 (2002). The court must find that the allegations of the charging document have been proved before it can continue a case without adjudication. Id. The court may not grant a continuance without adjudication in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding. Id.
Continuance without adjudication (or withholding of adjudication) has a material effect on a child's juvenile record. Prior to 1983, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines assigned one criminal history point for every two felony-level "juvenile adjudications." See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.B.4 (1982). In State v. Peterson, 331 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1983), the defendant claimed that it was error to use juvenile offenses for which there had been findings but no adjudication when calculating his criminal history score under the sentencing guidelines. The supreme court did not reach the defendant's argument but suggested that the Sentencing Guidelines Commission amend the guidelines to avoid the issue raised by defendant. Id. at 486. The guidelines were subsequently amended in 1983 to assign one criminal history point for every two felony-level offenses "committed and prosecuted as a juvenile", provided the juvenile court made findings pursuant to an admission or trial. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.B.4 (2002). Because Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.198, subd. 7 requires a finding that the juvenile committed the offense alleged in the charging document before the court may continue the case without an adjudication, which finding satisfies the requirements of the sentencing guidelines for counting a juvenile offense in the criminal history score, a continuance without adjudication (or withholding of adjudication) will not exclude the juvenile offense from a subsequent criminal history score. See John O. Sonsteng, et. al. 12 Minnesota Practice at 215 (1997). Continuance without adjudication may prevent the operation of some statutes which still require that the child be adjudicated delinquent. See, e.g., Minnesota Statutes, section 609.117, subd. 1(3) (2002) (provision of biological specimens for DNA analysis).
A continuance without adjudication or continuance for dismissal underMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 14are not the only options available for dealing with an alleged juvenile offender without formal process. Every county attorney should have a pretrial diversion program established for certain juveniles subject to juvenile court jurisdiction, as an alternative to formal adjudication. See Minnesota Statutes, section 388.24(2002). With statutory pretrial diversion readily available for less serious juvenile offenders, presumably the use of continuance without adjudication and continuance for dismissal under these rules will become less common.
Much of Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.07 was taken from Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04. There was question as to whether probation officers could detain juveniles pending a probation violation hearing for 72 hours pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 244.195, subd. 2 (2004) and 401.025, subd. 1 (2004). Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.07, subd. 2 was clarified to indicate that the maximum period for the detention of juveniles pending a probation violation hearing is 36 hours pursuant to Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 5 and Minn. Stat. § 260B.176, subd. 2 (2004).
The three-step Austin analysis (see State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980)) is not required when revoking a juvenile's probation under Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.07, subd. 4(D) "because the juvenile rules afford non-EJJ juvenile probationers better protection against the reflexive execution of a stayed disposition requiring confinement in a secure facility than Austin would afford." In re Welfare of R.V., 702 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
Unless all the parties agree to a proposed modification, the court may not order modification of the disposition after an informal review without commencing a modification proceeding pursuant to Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.08in order to give the parties an opportunity to contest the proposed modification before it is imposed.
Under Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.08, subd. 2, the court is not required to hold a hearing to examine a modification agreement on the record in every case. But agreements to make upward modifications to a disposition will normally require a court appearance and approval on the record in order to ensure that the proposed modification complies with the law, and that the child appreciates the significance of the modification and voluntarily consents to the modification. The discretion to approve a modification without an appearance is intended to be reserved for relatively minor, usually downward, modifications.
Rule 15.08 does not apply to probation revocations, the procedure for which is governed by Rule 15.07.
Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.154(2002) addresses the court's authority to issue a warrant for immediate custody for the child. Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.175, subd. 1(c) addresses the authority of a peace officer or probation officer to take a child into custody for allegedly violating the terms of probationary supervision.
Counsel for the child has the right and duty to appear at and participate in all probation revocation and modification proceedings and hearings. See Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 3.02, subd. 4.
References in this rule "counsel for the parent(s), legal guardian, or legal custodian include the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian who is proceeding pro se. Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 1.01.