Subcommittee tables bill to let juvenile court impose longer serious-offender commitments after heated testimony

The Courts of Justice subcommittee voted 5-3 to table House Bill 2270 after extended testimony and questions about moving serious-offender commitments into juvenile court.

Delegate Obenshane, the bill’s patron, told the subcommittee HB 2270 is intended to “reduce the incentives that currently exist in the code to transfer young juvenile serious offenders to circuit court” by giving juvenile and domestic relations (JDR) courts the same authority as circuit courts to commit serious juvenile offenders. The bill would permit the juvenile court to impose certain determinate commitments (up to seven years in some instances) without transferring the case to circuit court.

Committee counsel and multiple witnesses explained the statutory background. Under current law, the code provides two subdivisions for serious-offender commitments: subsection (a) contains objective predicate factors under which a juvenile can receive a serious-offender commitment in juvenile court; subsection (b) contains different factors that to date have required transfer to circuit court to pursue a serious-offender disposition. Counsel said the substitute would allow juvenile court judges to use the subsection (b) authority so cases can remain in juvenile court when appropriate, but noted the distinction in current law was deliberate.

Supporters included the Department of Juvenile Justice. Kristen Peterson of the Department said the department “very strongly supports this bill,” arguing that keeping juveniles in juvenile-court proceedings preserves rehabilitative services and confidentiality protections and avoids collateral consequences associated with adult convictions.

Opponents included Rise for Youth, the Virginia State Conference NAACP, the Virginia Student Power Network, and the Legal Aid Justice Center. Valerie Slater of Rise for Youth said the bill “would remove the safeguards that in essence in circuit court protect a young person from being overly charged,” noting JDR court is not a court of record and lacks the evidentiary record and procedural protections present in circuit court. Amy Walters of the Legal Aid Justice Center told the subcommittee she had represented serious juvenile offenders for more than a decade and said the bill “is a radical change” that could expand the number of juveniles receiving determinate commitments and worsen capacity problems: she said the Department of Juvenile Justice “has over 50 kids right now waiting for beds in direct care” and that the population “is set to increase by over 50% in the next year and a half,” potentially straining resources.

Several delegates pressed on procedural safeguards, appellate record concerns and the rehabilitative mission of juvenile court. One delegate said juvenile judges are “familiar with the services that might be needed” and argued juvenile court was the proper forum in many cases; another delegate and counsel emphasized that subsection (a) contains objective criteria that the code’s drafters intentionally separated from subsection (b) to provide guardrails.

The subcommittee adopted line amendments earlier in the hearing to make certain findings oral or written to suit the JDR (juvenile and domestic relations) court context, but after testimony the panel voted to table HB 2270 by roll call, 5-3. Members who voted in favor of tabling and those against were recorded by roll call in the subcommittee’s minutes.