Michael G. v. Superior Court
243 Cal. Rptr. 224, 44 Cal.3d 283, 747 P.2d 1152 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A juvenile court retains the inherent power to use secure, non-school-hours confinement to punish a minor status offender for contempt of court for willfully disobeying a lawful order, but only after making specific findings on the record that less restrictive alternatives are inadequate.
Facts:
- Michael G., a minor, was habitually truant from school.
- As a result of his truancy, the juvenile court declared him a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601(b), making him a 'status offender.'
- The court placed Michael G. on probation and, as a condition, ordered him to attend school regularly and avoid tardiness or absences.
- Michael G. acknowledged receiving a copy of the probationary order and understood its terms.
- Despite the court order, Michael G. willfully continued to have numerous unexcused absences from school, which he admitted he was able to avoid.
Procedural Posture:
- The Fresno County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, ordered Michael G. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violating his probation.
- Michael G. filed a demurrer and an alternative motion to dismiss the order to show cause.
- After a hearing, the juvenile court found Michael G. in contempt and ordered him confined in a secure facility for a 48-hour period over a weekend.
- The juvenile court stayed its own order to allow for appellate review.
- Michael G. (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and/or prohibition with the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District.
- The Court of Appeal vacated its initial stay and denied the petition.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a juvenile court have the authority to order the secure, non-school-hours confinement of a minor, who was made a ward of the court solely for truancy, as a punishment for contempt after the minor willfully disobeyed a court order to attend school, despite statutes generally prohibiting secure detention for such status offenders?
Opinions:
Majority - Arguelles, J.
Yes. A juvenile court retains the authority, pursuant to its contempt power, to order the secure, non-school-hours confinement of a contemptuous section 601 ward. The court's inherent power to punish for contempt is fundamental and exists to ensure its orders are not meaningless. While statutes like sections 601(b) and 207 express a legislative policy to deinstitutionalize status offenders, they do not explicitly strip the court of its contempt power. To harmonize the court's inherent authority with legislative intent, secure confinement for contempt is permissible but must be treated as a last resort. Before imposing such a sanction, a juvenile court must make specific findings on the record that: (1) the juvenile had sufficient notice of the order, (2) the violation was egregious, (3) less restrictive alternatives were considered and found to be ineffective, and (4) the confinement will be arranged to prevent contact with delinquent wards.
Dissenting - Broussard, J.
No. A juvenile court cannot incarcerate a status offender for contempt of a court order. The Legislature has made its intent unequivocally clear through amendments to sections 207 and 602 that status offenders are not to be incarcerated, even for disobeying court orders. The majority's decision allows the court to do indirectly what the Legislature has forbidden directly, effectively resurrecting the 'bootstrapping' of a status offender into a delinquent, a practice condemned in In re Ronald S. This ruling prioritizes the 'dignity' of the court over the well-being of the minor and contravenes the Legislature's considered judgment that incarceration is too harmful for status offenders.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant judicial exception to the strong legislative trend of deinstitutionalizing status offenders. It affirms the court's inherent contempt power as an essential tool for enforcing its orders, preventing them from becoming merely advisory. By establishing a mandatory four-part test before imposing confinement, the court balances judicial authority with legislative policy, ensuring that incarceration remains a measure of last resort for only the most egregious violations. This case sets a crucial precedent for how juvenile courts must handle non-criminal but disobedient minors, creating a pathway for secure detention that the plain text of the governing statutes appeared to foreclose.
