Rule 210 Adjudicatory Hearings

Advisory Commission Comments.

It is the Commission’s intent that the court consider only evidence which has been properly admitted during the adjudicatory hearing. The Commission recognizes that the court may have held one or more hearings prior to the adjudicatory hearing which may have resulted in the admission of evidence. Furthermore, the Commission recognizes that the court’s file may contain reports and other items submitted by the Department, CASA, law enforcement, or service providers. Such reports and items may not be considered by the court unless properly admitted during the adjudicatory hearing.

This rule combines previous Rule 17 regarding Time Limits on Scheduling Adjudicatory Hearings and Rule 28 Adjudicatory Hearings. The Commission felt this to be logically consistent and would aid practitioners’ use of the rule. This rule highlights the statutory framework of a delinquent or unruly case with regard to the adjudicatory hearing.

This rule does not apply to a violation of a Valid Court Order.

During the adjudicatory hearing and prior to disposition, the court makes two distinct findings with regard to each child charged as a delinquent or unruly child: whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the allegations in the petition, and, if so, whether the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation. Upon making these findings, the court then proceeds to the dispositional hearing. T.C.A. § 37-1-129(b) states that upon a finding of guilt the court must “proceed immediately or at a postponed hearing” to determine whether the child is “in need of treatment or rehabilitation.” This is consistent with the definition of “delinquent child” under T.C.A. § 37-1-102(b) (“delinquent child means a child who has committed a delinquent act and is in need of treatment and rehabilitation”), and T.C.A. § 37-1-129(f), which allows the court to continue the adjudicatory hearing to receive evidence bearing upon the issue of treatment and rehabilitation. Similarly, the definition of “unruly child” under T.C.A. § 37-1-102(b) also requires a finding of “in need of treatment and rehabilitation” in order to adjudicate the child to be an unruly child.

The Commission understands that many courts may, in an effort to achieve judicial economy, and absent contrary circumstances, elect to conduct both the “treatment and rehabilitation” phase of the adjudicatory hearing and the dispositional hearing immediately after the guilt phase of the adjudicatory hearing. In the event the court continues the adjudicatory hearing to receive evidence bearing upon the issue of treatment and rehabilitation, the court has the authority pursuant to T.C.A. § 37-1-129(f) to issue orders regarding the child pending the resumption of the hearing.

The Commission notes that T.C.A. § 37-1-129(b) states that the commission of acts which constitute a felony or that reflect recidivistic delinquency is sufficient to sustain a finding that the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation.

The Commission notes that the Juvenile Offender Act, T.C.A. § 55-10-701 et. seq., also known as the Drug Free Youth Act, requires the adjudicatory court to send to the Department of Safety an order of denial of driving privileges when the child is “convicted of the offense.” As explained above, a conviction does not necessarily lead to an adjudication of delinquency due to the added requirement that the court find that the child is in need of treatment and rehabilitation. All parties must be aware of the court’s duty under the Act.

The new rule changes the requirement that the adjudicatory hearing be “scheduled for adjudication” within either 30 or 90 days to a requirement that the adjudicatory hearing be “heard.”

The varying time limits in these rules for children in custody or detention and children not in custody indicate the Commission’s strong intent that cases involving children in custody, and especially in secure detention, be given priority on the docket. Of course, all hearings should be scheduled and held as speedily as possible in the interest of providing timely treatment for children. The Commission recognizes the fact that a child's perception of time is quite different from that of an adult, with shorter periods of time being felt as being much extended, so that it is important that whatever action is taken be taken expeditiously, within the limits of practicability.

There are instances, however, where it will be quite appropriate to allow for a relatively longer period of time prior to disposition, in particular, for the child to prove to the court that a less restrictive disposition may be desirable in the case, for example. This is the purpose of the longer 90-day limit in cases in which children are not being held in custody, and of the provisions allowing for extensions of the time limits. Another valid reason for extensions of the limits would be to obtain psychological evaluations and testing which could not be obtained within the specified time limits.

In any case in which the time limits prescribed are not complied with, or in which the provisions for continuances are not complied with, the court may dismiss the charges with prejudice where it determines that failure to comply with the time limits constitutes a violation of the child's right to a speedy trial. In any case in which the time limits prescribed are not complied with, or in which the provisions for extensions are not complied with, the court may discharge the child from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if the court determines that the interests of justice so require.

These rules do not require a pretrial conference; however, the Commission encourages courts to schedule a pretrial conference or settlement date during which negotiations may occur with the parties and counsel, law enforcement, victims, and the district attorney.

Advisory Commission Comments [2017].

The last sentence of the third paragraph of the Advisory Commission Comments rule is deleted. That sentence (which provided "See the Appendix to these rules regarding Valid Court Orders") should have been deleted in the comprehensive revision of the Rules of Juvenile Procedure effective July 1, 2016, because the appendix to which it referred was deleted at that time.