Court of Appeals holds juvenile cannot be ordered into confinement for an evaluation without first obtaining a recommendation from the community mental health center
The October 16, 2024, Court of Appeals opinion in SCDSS v.Caldwell, held that a juvenile cannot be ordered into confinement for an evaluation without first obtaining a recommendation from the community mental health center.
Caldwell involved a seventeen year old juvenile, J.S., who was on probation with the Department of Juvenile Justice and whose parents were parties to a DSS abuse and neglect action. Due to a lack of foster care options, J.S. was living at the county DSS offices, where he had “various behavioral issues.” Based on these concerns, the family court ordered J.S. into the Department of Mental Health (DMH) for an inpatient psychological evaluation.” J.S. appealed.
Despite the evaluation already having taken place, the Court of Appeals did not dismiss the appeal as moot, finding it was capable of repetition but would usually evade review. Addressing the merits, the Court of Appeals found the plain language of S.C. Code § 44-24-150. “requires a minor to first be evaluated at a community mental health center before the family court may order an inpatient evaluation for the juvenile.” Thus it reversed the family court for directing DMH to admit J.S. for an inpatient evaluation.
One thought on Court of Appeals holds juvenile cannot be ordered into confinement for an evaluation without first obtaining a recommendation from the community mental health center
Dear Greg: thanks for posting this. Indeed, the family court’s commitment of this child was reversed, but as the opinion points out. the family court does have jurisdiction to commit children to the SC Department of Mental Health, under the mental health code. There is a procedure for doing so, to be sure, but the court unequivocally has the authority to do it. There are other dimensions presented by this case. 1st, its important to note the facts. This youngster was living at the SCDSS offices for lack of placement. This is a recurring problem. Last week, two youngsters at Richland County DSS acted out, due to their being housed at its office, resulting in a protest by DSS caseworkers over working conditions. This, despite the fact that SCDSS has been under a federal consent decree to address this problem – for years. 2nd, overlooked and ignored by our “child caring” establishment is the fact that both this state’s foster care system and its juvenile reform schools are both under federal court orders to improve. I think that may be a national record. And its an indictment of our state’s institutions meant to serve children.
Dear Greg: thanks for posting this. Indeed, the family court’s commitment of this child was reversed, but as the opinion points out. the family court does have jurisdiction to commit children to the SC Department of Mental Health, under the mental health code. There is a procedure for doing so, to be sure, but the court unequivocally has the authority to do it. There are other dimensions presented by this case. 1st, its important to note the facts. This youngster was living at the SCDSS offices for lack of placement. This is a recurring problem. Last week, two youngsters at Richland County DSS acted out, due to their being housed at its office, resulting in a protest by DSS caseworkers over working conditions. This, despite the fact that SCDSS has been under a federal consent decree to address this problem – for years. 2nd, overlooked and ignored by our “child caring” establishment is the fact that both this state’s foster care system and its juvenile reform schools are both under federal court orders to improve. I think that may be a national record. And its an indictment of our state’s institutions meant to serve children.