Maryland DJS outlines juvenile case flow in Calvert County, emphasizes community-based supervision

Cindy Scribner, a representative of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, told the Calvert County juvenile services committee that most juvenile cases in the county are misdemeanors and are handled in the community rather than by detention or out-of-home placement. She said the agency’s role is to provide intake, supervision and treatment recommendations to the court; judges make detention and placement decisions.

Scribner said Calvert County uses detention risk assessments and night intake procedures for after-hours referrals, and that detained youth must be seen at the next court session. “If they are detained, they have to be seen the next court date,” Scribner said. She described the intake process as separate from court: an intake hearing (now held within about 15 days after a referral) can result in case closure, pre-court (90-day) supervision, or referral to the state’s attorney’s office for formal petitioning. “What can happen at an intake hearing is the case can be closed at intake,” she said, giving the example of families that have already connected a youth to therapy and medication.

Scribner outlined statutory changes implemented in 2024 under House Bill 814 that altered jurisdictional and probation timelines. She said juvenile courts now have jurisdiction when a youth age 13 or older is alleged to have committed an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, and that certain very serious offenses can be charged for children aged 10–12. She summarized probation timeframes: misdemeanor probation can start up to one year and be extended to two years for treatment purposes in three-month increments; felony probation can start up to two years and extend to three for treatment purposes, with limited exceptions for crimes of violence that can remain open until a youth turns 21.

Calvert County’s current caseloads, Scribner said, reflect comparatively low levels of serious offenses. She reported there were two youths in detention at the time of the meeting; both were 16 and charged as adults and were awaiting transfer-of-jurisdiction hearings. “Right now in Calvert County, we have 2 youth in detention, but they are both what we call adult holds,” she said. She also stated there were no children in out-of-home placement at the time.

Scribner described the agency’s move away from more-punitive approaches and toward community-based services and prevention: fewer removals from home and less electronic monitoring. She emphasized the agency’s goal is to keep youths in their communities with services, noting the trauma of removal and the limited long-term benefits if family circumstances do not change. “Our job is to provide services to youth and their families to keep them in the community,” she said.

Committee members asked about service gaps and the agency’s relationship with schools. Scribner identified two recurring barriers: (1) limited availability of intensive outpatient substance-abuse providers who accept TRICARE and other insurance common in the county, and (2) transportation challenges that make centralized services unreachable for some families. She said in-home programs—such as functional family therapy and Institute for Family Centered Services—help mitigate those problems because they bring services to families’ homes and are flexible about appointment times.

Scribner also discussed data and local patterns. She said Calvert receives a relatively small number of school-originated police reports this school year (two, she said, as of the meeting) and that most referrals come from local law enforcement. She encouraged committee members to consult the Maryland DJS data resource guide for county-by-county comparisons and offered to provide additional comparative data on request.

Committee members pressed on family engagement and enforcement when families do not follow through on recommended services. Scribner described a stepped approach that attempts to address underlying barriers (transportation, scheduling, misunderstanding of services) before seeking stronger court intervention. Judges, she said, may invite the Department of Social Services (DSS) into hearings when neglect concerns arise, and the court will consider a family’s reasons for not participating before taking enforcement steps.

The presentation closed with members thanking Scribner and discussing how schools, principals and probation officers coordinate on attendance and student supports. Scribner said probation officers who work with schools monitor attendance, grades and behavior for youth on supervision and collaborate with school staff to identify supports and refer families to services.

Ending: Scribner offered contact information and follow-up help with data requests. She left handouts for committee members and encouraged them to call if they needed further information.