Study: Juvenile justice in Ariz. is often uneven

The right of Arizona children to an attorney in delinquency cases is unevenly carried out and hindered by fees and assessments, a national study released Tuesday shows.

That right was established by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling stemming from an Arizona case. However, more than a half-century later, Arizona has yet to fully guarantee that children receive the same due-process

rights in court as adults, the National Juvenile Defender Center reports.

“Across the state, attorneys who defend children charged with delinquent acts do not typically engage in the type of legal advocacy envisioned by the United States or Arizona constitutions, the Arizona Juvenile Code, or ethical codes of professional conduct,” the report concluded.

Although legal representation is supposed to be free for indigent families, “nothing in juvenile court is free — not the attorney, probation, shelter care, detention, treatment or other ordered services,” according to the report.

Additionally, fees harm low-income families and extend a child’s involvement with the juvenile justice system.

“One of the most troubling findings ... is the overwhelming number of fees and costs levied against youth and families,” National Juvenile Defender Center Executive Director Mary Ann Scali said in a statement.

“Children and families are charged for every aspect of the court system, from being held in detention to probation treatment and services. Troublingly, children are charged fees to access lawyers who are supposed to be provided for free. These financial burdens have real, lasting, negative impacts: they drive youth deeper into the court system and mire them in debt that hinders their ability to successfully continue their education and find employment.”

It concludes with more than a dozen recommendations to shore up children’s due-process rights, including abolition of all fees and costs related to juvenile court and automatic appointment of an attorney to any child charged with delinquency.

Chris Phillis, a member of the Southwest Juvenile Defender Center and a longtime practitioner of juvenile law in Arizona, said the report is especially discouraging given Arizona was the birthplace of the standard for due process for juveniles.

The 1967 Supreme Court ruling grew out of a case involving Gila County teenager Gerald Gault who, along with a friend, was reported to police after making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Neither he nor his parents were notified of the charges against him. Nor were they made aware of court hearings, and they were not allowed to appeal the case.

“We have a long way to go,” Phillis said.

Investigators for the Washington D.C.-based center visited seven Arizona counties this year, spending time in courtrooms in rural and urban areas, and interviewing participants in the juvenile-justice system.

They documented numerous occasions where children waived their right to an attorney. They do so out of expediency, hoping to end the case quickly, or a desire to avoid assessments that are levied in such cases.

Legal advocacy for children in juvenile-court proceedings is uneven and, in many cases, non-existent, the center’s investigators reported.

Aside from waiving their right to an attorney, the report found:

❚ For those who do accept counsel, some children don’t meet their attorney until after their initial hearing.

❚ Others meet their attorneys in court hallways minutes before they are set to see a judge.

❚ Attorneys back off on aggressive defenses, for fear of not getting favorable plea deals from prosecutors.

The report recommends ending what is called the “knowing, voluntary and intelligent” waiver, saying it’s a lot to ask of children in court cases. Instead, it recommends every child automatically get an attorney.

Foregoing the services of a court-appointed attorney can “haunt you down the road,” Phillis said. Children, let alone their parents, don’t realize juvenile records are open and can follow an individual into adulthood, she said.

“Parents think this is like kiddie court, and whatever happens here disappears at age 18,” she said.

A juvenile record will make it hard to enlist in the military; it can dash hopes of becoming a nurse, or a pharmacist.

While larger counties such as Maricopa automatically appoint an attorney when a juvenile’s case is started, that isn’t the practice in some rural counties. In fact, Gila County, birthplace of the Gault decision, doesn’t have a public defender for such cases, Phillis said.

Scali said Arizona is the 24th state where the group has scrutinized the juvenile-delinquency system. Arizona ranks about in the middle for its adherence to due-process rights for juveniles, she said, but she had expected better.

“Because Arizona is the home state to the Gault decision, we were surprised to see the number of counties where children didn’t have access to attorneys,” she said.

The report did not quantify the number of counties, noting the review is intended to be a qualitative assessment of the system.

There’s another stumbling block to a fair shake in the system: a “panoply” of financial obligations. The system is larded with fees and assessments. Among those documented in the report:

❚ An “indigent administrative assessment” of up to $25, even though indigent children can get a “free” attorney;

❚ An administrative assessment of up to $25;

❚ Other assessments once a child is adjudicated guilty of various offenses, ranging from $150 for being incorrigible to $1,000 for a graffiti offense.

The financial penalties weigh on families and can follow a child into adulthood, the report noted.

The Arizona Legislature this year passed a law that mandates a court order for money owed in a juvenile’s case. This order remains in force until the amount owed is paid in full.

“Money should not be an issue,” Phillis said. “All it does is burden family. It doesn’t really do anything toward rehabilitation.”

She and Scali said there is little benefit from the fees and fines. Given the effort to collect them, not much is left over for the intended purpose, such as victim restitution or rehab services, they said.

The report also focused on the role of the defense attorney.

Investigators said judges and defenders expressed a desire for a legal specialty for delinquency defense, as there is for family law and bankruptcy, among other areas.

There also was interest in statewide standards for this area of law, something that exists for children in Department of Child Safety neglect and abuse cases, but not for delinquency. Specialization, and standards, would recognize the intricacies of dealing with juveniles and their parents, the report stated.

It also noted what it called a culture of “collegiality” between defenders and prosecutors that can become overly cozy, at the expense of the child’s defense.

“Everybody has to be dedicated to their role,” Scali said. Defenders need to stick to their duty to aggressively defend the child, even if that means irritating prosecutors who might be inclined to offer less-favorable plea deals.