Juvenile Success Stories:
How The Right To Treatment Can Work

To those of us playing the role of juvenile public defender at the trial or post-trial stage, the words "juvenile" and "success" or "successful treatment" may not seem to belong in the same sentence. However dim the headlines of late have been regarding juveniles, there are many juvenile success stories that happen every day but do not receive the attention they deserve. Some of these are found in this article.

Juveniles who come into contact with the court system in Kentucky are entitled to treatment, not punishment. KRS 600.010. Treatment remains the goal of the Kentucky Unified Juvenile Code after the 1998 Kentucky Legislative session. Both public offenders, who remain in juvenile (district) court, and youthful offenders, who have been transferred to circuit court, have a "right to treatment reasonably calculated to bring about an improvement in [their] condition(s)." KRS 600.010(d) (emphasis added).

The right to treatment applies to all juveniles, regardless of the crime, the age at the time of the offense, or whether the juvenile is transferred to adult court.

In the past year, there have been several instances of juvenile clients, convicted as youthful offenders, who have successfully completed a treatment program and were then released on probation at their eighteen year old hearings. Some clients were represented by the Juvenile Post-Dispositional Branch and some were represented by their trial attorneys. In some cases, formal Alternative Sentencing Plans were prepared and proposed to the court, while in others, terms of probation were suggested in court and were ordered. Charges as serious as Rape, first, were probated. Sentences spanned from three to twenty years.

In one instance, a client, M.D., was granted one year probation with an alternative sentencing plan at his eighteen year old hearing in Warren Circuit court. Though M.D. was only fifteen when convicted of Wanton Endangerment in the first degree for shooting at the tires of a police vehicle, he made many changes during the time he was committed to a treatment center. He was transferred from the most secure juvenile treatment facility in the state to a minimum security facility because of his low security rating and progress in the facility. He ambitiously finished his high school diploma, passed his GED, took the ACT, and was awarded a full Pell grant to Western Kentucky University. He will attend school there this fall. Because the court date was delayed for one month, the director and counselor at the minimum security facility arranged for M.D. to be transported to a job one hour away, every day for one month, in order to gain job experience. These two men attended the hearing, eager to inform the judge of the progress made at the treatment center.

Another youthful offender , J.J., was charged with Robbery in the first degree after robbing a cashier at a local "steak and egg" with an unloaded pistol when he was sixteen years old. He was sentenced to ten years. In the two years before this robbery, J.J. had been heading down the wrong path. He went to school sporadically, signed himself out of special education classes. At the treatment center, he was re-enrolled in special education classes and did not have one disciplinary violation. His mother, who is deaf-mute, came to visit every weekend. J.J. had a shock probation hearing but probation was denied on the basis that he had committed a very serious crime involving a gun. However, he continued to excel in his treatment program. At the eighteen year old hearing, his mother was the primary witness and through an interpreter explained how she was very dependent on her son for help. She told the court that she moved to a nicer neighborhood and would do anything the court asked if her son could be probated. The social worker submitted an affidavit stating that she overheard the person whose gun was used in the robbery tell another that the gun was unloaded. After hearing the terms of probation that J.J. agreed to abide by, the judge granted probation.

At the age of 14 years and 42 days, H..Z. committed an impulsive act in an effort to obtain money for a cab ride home and approval from an older friend. H.Z. and two other children stole two toy guns from Hills Department Store. These harmless plastic toys were then used in three successive robberies. H.Z. is a child who has been diagnosed with numerous disabilities over the years: Tourette’s, learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and emotional and behavioral disorders. Due to the then newly enacted automatic transfer statute, H.Z's case was transferred to circuit court. KRS 635.020(4). After being told by his attorney than he would probably get sixty years if he went to trial, H.Z. pled guilty to one count of Robbery in the first degree, and was sentenced to twenty years. After a rough transition from detention to a treatment center and a transfer to another treatment center, H.Z. met a counselor, a principal, and a volunteer art teacher who gave H.Z. the opportunity to succeed. H.Z. became a role model for other residents, excelled at school and developed his enormous talent as an artist.

Working with his attorney, H.Z. and other individuals prepared a probation plan. H.Z.'s principal traveled over 75 miles to meet this a special education coordinator to develop an IEP, the counselor helped H.Z. prepare letters and testified on H.Z.'s behalf, the art teacher made calls to arrange for continued training and offered to continue his training by opening his home to monthly weekend visits. Despite the unclear status of probation eligibility of juvenile's transferred under the "firearm" provision at the time of his hearing, the court granted the untimely motion for shock probation, showing court room personnel H.Z's artwork and remarking that he had never seen a juvenile have such support from so many people.

N.S., at the age of sixteen, was convicted in circuit court of Robbery in the first degree, and sentenced to eight years. On the same day N.S. was to appear before the court for his hearing after turning eighteen, the Court of Appeals held that youthful offenders transferred under KRS 635.020(4) are not eligible for probation. See Commonwealth v. Britt, Ky. Ct. App., No. 95-CR-002556 (1997). N.S. was then immediately transferred to corrections and sent to the Roederer Correctional Complex. Six weeks later, the judge intervened on N.S.'s behalf and ordered him placed back in a youth development center for six months. At this point N.S. was extremely depressed after his experience at the Roederer Complex. However, with the help of his treatment team, he was able to attain a G.E.D. and complete the treatment program. When he appeared before the court, he was able to present numerous letters of recommendation from teachers, counselors, and staff. The judge ordered him finally discharged.

Juveniles adjudicated as sexual offenders are placed in a sexual offender treatment program which requires a minimum of two years treatment time. KRS 635.515. A juvenile can be required to remain in SOTP until the program is completed, a maximum of three years. A client, C.K., was charged with Rape in the first degree, for an offense committed against his adopted sister at age fourteen. The judge sentenced him to fifteen years and said it was unlikely C.K. would be probated at his eighteen year old hearing. C.K. lingered in a detention center for a long time before being committed to a treatment center. He remained in SOTP for over two years and did well in the program. While there, his counselor helped him enroll at Murray State University and helped him find an apartment. When C.K. returned to court at age eighteen, even the prosecutor did not want him sent to prison. The judge granted probation.

Public offenders make up the majority of juveniles in treatment centers throughout the state. The length of their stay in a residential facility depends on how well they progress through the center’s individual treatment plan. When a client has made great progress through a program and is no longer in need of treatment, a Motion to Terminate Commitment can be used to release him back into the community. Such a motion was filed in the case of G.A. in Grayson county. G.A. was adjudicated of three counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the second degree. During his stay at the treatment facility, he completed a welding program, worked with the counselor to be prescription drug-free successfully, obtained his GED, and attained the third level out of four in the treatment plan. The judge agreed that he was ready to be released and granted the motion. G.A. was over eighteen at the time the motion was granted and is enrolled in vocational school.

These are only some examples of how treatment within the DJJ facilities really can work. Though we as public defenders oftentimes find ourselves as adversaries to DJJ staff, by working together it is possible for us to have more successful outcomes in the courtroom. Equally importantly, it is possible to make a tremendous difference in the lives of our troubled juvenile clients who are ready to make a change for the better.

Kim Crone, Assistant Public Advocate
Juvenile Post-Dispositional Unit
100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Tel: (502) 564-8006, #220; Fax: (502) 564-7890
E-mail: kcrone@mail.pa.state.ky.us
 

Jeff Sherr, Assistant Public Advocate
P.O. Box 154
203 W. Main Street
Stanford, Kentucky 40484
Tel: (606) 365-8060; Fax: (606) 365-7020
E-mail: jsherr@mail.pa.state.ky.us
 

Return to the Table of Contents