Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Court: Exhaust options before jailing runaways

Rachel La Corte Associated Press

OLYMPIA – The state Supreme Court has ruled that juvenile courts must exhaust all other options before jailing youngsters for months for running away from foster homes.

But the court was split on what it means to exhaust all other options – including whether to go through a criminal proceeding.

The high court on Thursday overruled an appellate court that upheld the contempt cases against two foster children who were sent to jail for 30 to 60 days. The Supreme Court said the juvenile court “improperly resorted to the use of its inherent power in this case.”

One of a court’s inherent powers is that of inherent contempt, which does not rely on specific statutes. It is the power of judges to put people in jail for violating court orders, procedures or decorum.

“The significance of the case is that it appears that all of the justices on the court agree that under appropriate circumstances, juvenile court can use inherent contempt,” said Stephen Hassett, an assistant attorney general who is the lead attorney for the Children’s Administration, which is part of the state Department of Social and Health Services.

“The issue is when can they go beyond what the statute allows,” he said. “It seems that all of the judges to one extent or another say that they can go beyond the specific statutory remedies, but where the decision breaks into its different decisions is exactly when they can do that under what circumstances.”

State law allows the jailing of foster children for as long as seven days for violating court orders to remain where they are assigned to live, but Yakima County Juvenile Court Commissioner Robert Inouye found that was not enough to change the behavior of the chronic runaways. In the two cases on appeal before the high court, he found two runaways in contempt and sent them to jail for 30 to 60 days.

“While inherent contempt authority is a critical component of judicial power, its use is only appropriate in limited situations,” wrote the plurality, led by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. Alexander was joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and James Johnson.