In re S.M.

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals addresses whether an order continuing a juvenile’s detention and changing the location of detention is subject to emergency interlocutory review under D.C. Code § 16-2328. The court holds that such an order is reviewable and that a juvenile may challenge both continued detention and the detention location. It further holds that selecting a particular detention location does not require a finding that that location, as opposed to another, is necessary to protect safety or secure the child’s appearance, although continued detention itself must satisfy the statutory detention criteria.

Holdings

1. An order that continues previously ordered detention and specifies a new detention location is a detention order within the meaning of D.C. Code § 16-2328 and is subject to emergency interlocutory review.
2. On an emergency appeal from an order initially detaining a child or moving the child from one detention location to another, the child may challenge both the detention decision and the location of detention.
3. When deciding where to detain a child, the trial court need not find that placement in the particular location, as opposed to another detention location, is itself required to protect safety or secure the child's appearance.
4. Although the appeal became moot as to the challenged detention order, the court had discretion to explain broader legal conclusions concerning recurring and significant detention issues.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an order continuing a juvenile's detention and changing the location of detention is subject to emergency interlocutory review under D.C. Code § 16-2328.
2. Whether a juvenile may challenge the location of detention, in addition to the underlying detention decision, in an emergency appeal under D.C. Code § 16-2328.
3. Whether a trial court must find that placement in the particular detention location is required to protect safety or secure the child's appearance under D.C. Code § 16-2310(a).
4. Whether the court should address broader legal issues after the appeal became moot.

Disposition

vacated