Posted: November 16, 2017
Rules of Juvenile Procedure – Comment Period Closed December 31, 2017
URJP007 Warrants. Contains revisions necessitated by new statute section 78A-6-106.5 promulgated by H.B. 239 – Juvenile Justice Amendments.
URJP015 Preliminary inquiry; informal adjustment without petition. Contains revisions necessitated by statutory revisions to section 78A-6-602 promulgated by H.B. 239 – Juvenile Justice Amendments.
URJP016 Transfer of delinquency case for preliminary inquiry. Contains revisions necessitated by statutory revisions to section 78A-6-602 promulgated by H.B. 239 – Juvenile Justice Amendments. Clarifies applicability of certain rule provisions to a child (under the age of 18) and a minor (under the age of 21).
URJP023A Hearing on conditions of Section 78A-6-702. Changes burden of proof to preponderance to bring rule into conformity with 2015 statute change.
URJP031 Initiation of truancy proceedings. Repeals Rule 31 due to statutory changes removing juvenile court jurisdiction over habitual truants.
URJP033 Preliminary orders and summary proceedings. Deletes provisions related to the ability to place non-resident runaways into the custody of the Division of child and Family Services.
URJP 16(a)(5) states that “referrals shall be transferred back to the county of occurrence for filing of a petition and further proceedings…” if “…there are multiple minors involved who live in different counties.”
That would require the probation department to return referrals to counties of occurrence, for filing of petitions, for referrals of even the most minor of offenses. There also seems to be no consideration of the involved minors’ risk levels, since the transfer would be based solely on there being more than one “involved” minor residing in two or more counties.
This condition seems to be in conflict with URJP 15(a) which requires probation officers to offer a nonjudicial adjustment to minors and children who qualify for nonjudicial adjustment based on the factors established by HB239 (e.g., delinquency history, severity of the pending offense, minor’s risk level, etc.)
Further, the rule does not make clear whether the “involved” minors include alleged offenders, alleged victims, witnesses, or any combination thereof.