Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1391

September Term, 1997 ___________________________________

IN RE:

LORNE S.

___________________________________ Hollander, Salmon, Alpert, Paul E. (Ret., specially assigned) ____________________________________ Opinion by Alpert, J. ____________________________________ Filed: November 25, 1998

Lorne S., the appellant, was charged with being a delinquent child by virtue of an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute theft. incident. He was fourteen years old at the time of the

At an adjudicatory hearing before Master Bradley O.

Bailey, appellant admitted that he was involved in the incident. Master Bradley committed appellant to the Department of Juvenile Justice and ordered him to pay restitution in the sum of $100 to his mother, the victim of the incident. to the findings of the master. Appellant took exceptions

The exceptions were heard in a de

novo hearing in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes (David W. Young, J.). exceptions. Judge Young overruled the

Appellant asks on appeal whether the Juvenile Court This

erred in ordering him to pay restitution to his mother. question, however, requires resolution of two issues: I. Did the juvenile court err in holding that appellant's mother was a "victim" within the meaning of the restitution statute? II. Did the juvenile court properly consider appellant's age and circumstances before ordering restitution?

We perceive no error and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the juvenile court. FACTS On April 7, 1997, appellant, who was fourteen years old, took a car belonging to his mother, Patricia Hogan, without permission. As a result of appellant's unauthorized use of the vehicle, the vehicle was involved in an accident causing $1,600 worth of damage

to the vehicle. Ms. Hogan,

Ms. Hogan's insurance paid for most of the damage. paid $100, the deductible amount on her

however,

insurance policy. At the time of the incident, appellant was in the legal custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice, having been

committed to that Department in September 1996.

He had been

returned to the physical custody of his mother at some point prior to the incident. At an adjudicatory hearing before Master Bailey, appellant admitted that he had used his mother's car without permission. Ms. Hogan requested that appellant be required to pay restitution to her in the amount of her insurance deductible. Master Bailey

ordered appellant committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and ordered him to pay $100 restitution to his mother. The

restitution was to be paid before appellant turned 21 years of age. Appellant filed exceptions to the restitution order. A de

novo hearing was held on July 14, 1997 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, before The Honorable David Young. At that hearing, counsel argued that restitution was

inappropriate because appellant had been fourteen years old at the time of the offense and because appellant had no assets. He

stated that appellant had been committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and that the plan of that Department was to place appellant in a long-term residential treatment program of uncertain

-2-

duration. Counsel further argued that because the restitution statute permitted an order of restitution be awarded against the parent of a juvenile found to have committed a delinquent act, and because the "liability [of the parent] arises as a consequence of the presumed neglect of parental responsibilities," it was

inappropriate to require appellant to pay restitution to his mother.1 The State countered that appellant would be fifteen the next month and would be able to obtain a work permit. It contended

that, because the Department of Juvenile Justice had legal custody of the child at the time of the incident, appellant's mother should not be considered a "parent" within the meaning of the restitution statute and that, in any event, regardless of a parent's

responsibility, the child could always be held responsible. Judge Young rejected defense counsel's argument that

restitution was barred by appellant's current lack of assets and the possibility that appellant might be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for several years. under advisement. He then took the matter

Appellant also argued that restitution was improper because the situation was analogous to one involving parent/child immunity. He also argued that restitution was improper because he had been committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice. He asserted that, since the Department of Juvenile Justice could not be made to pay restitution, he should not be required to pay. He does not repeat those arguments in this appeal. -3-

1

On

September

18,

1997,

Judge

Young

denied

appellant's

exceptions to the Master's disposition.

He stated that he had

considered the arguments of counsel and the provisions of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article,

Download IN Re: Lorne S..pdf

Maryland Law