In Re Bianca S. -- When the Adults are the Delinquents

This case is an excellent example of kicking someone when they are down.  The someone(s) here are two thirteen-year-old girls previously let down by their families and placed into custody of the state.  The subsequent kicking was done in sequential order by the county's Health and Human Services, the police, the probation department, the San Diego District Attorney, and then the Honorable Roderick Shelton.

The two girls had been taken from their families and put in the Polinsky Center, a temporary emergency shelter for children removed from their families for their own safety.  While at the shelter the two girls knocked over a vending machine and took some goodies.  They ran away briefly but came back.  The good folks at the Polinsky Center called the police who came and arrested the 13 year-old girls and took them to juvenile hall.  It was the first offense for either girl.  The San Diego District Attorney filed a petition to declare the girls delinquency wards.

At their detention hearing, the probation officer recommended the judge keep the girls in juvenile hall despite the detention screening forms' conclusions that there was no basis for mandatory detention and an insufficient basis for discretionary detention.  The probation officer recommended detention based on conclusions that the girls were "likely to flee" and keeping them locked up was "necessary for the protection" of the people and property of the state of California.  The facts averred to support these conclusions were [1] a social worker's statement that Bianca had "demonstrated poor behavior" and [2] that if Bianca was taken back to the Polinsky Center she would be "negatively influenced by her peers".  The good judge found these two statements sufficiently persuasive to justify the recommended findings and overcome the legal presumption against detention.  He ordered the girls locked up in juvenile hall until their next court date.  

The girls' petitioned for, and received, writ relief.  These facts don't require much legal commentary; Judge Shelton blatantly erred in applying the law.  The real reason these girls were detained is because they were dependency wards and their social workers couldn't be bothered to find them homes.  No kid whose first offense is stealing from a vending machine remains incarcerated if she has an adequate family to which to return.  Wisely the law clearly does not allow a judge to lock up a child for a minor offense just because they have been removed from their family and social services hasn't found a home for them. 

Anybody who has an interest in how to safely reduce incarceration rates should parse this opinion carefully.  Two young girls have been removed from their families for their own safety (their parents can't or won't provide the minimum of care).  Obviously the girls are going to have psychological issues.  Then you put them in a temporary emergency shelter with 200 other neglected, abused, and emotionally damaged kids.  You have vending machines in the shelter.  Why?  To taunt the children with goodies they can't have (unless this is a temporary shelter for neglected children of hedge fund managers)?  The girls, no doubt despite having received award-winning temporary shelter cuisine, steal some of the goodies by knocking over the vending machine.

Now what would a reasonable adult do in response?  It is a moot question because whoever staffs the Polinsky center clearly is not reasonable.  Some dolt calls the police on the two girls.  Someone who I assume has been given the duty to act in the children's best interest, determines that a good handcuffing is an underrated psychological tool for neglected, hungry, children.  The police show up and make a professional decision to arrest these girls.  So adult judgement is now 0 for 2.  Enter the probation department, whose choice it is to either counsel the girls informally or send the case to the district attorney for charging.  They decide these girls need a good formal charging and send it to the district attorney, who then files a case against the girls, setting the table for Judge Roderick to make the erroneous detention order.  

It appears not one member of the conveyor belt of government job-holders fired a single synapse during their part in this.  Do you want a recipe for mass incarceration?  Here it is:  [1] take neglected and damaged children; [2] cut them no slack, rather hold them to even more rigid standards than children raised in good homes, [3] when their pain finally emerges, don't try to understand from where it came or provide reassurance; rather, [4] arrest them and introduce them into the criminal justice system, sending the message that this is where they belong; then, [5]  rather than release them, aggregate all of the damaged children whose cries for help you've responded to with governmental violence in one place where older and more experienced troubled children can exert an unhealthy influence over the youngers; and, [6] express disbelief at the adult incarceration rate. 

 The recipe has been around for a while and while everyone claims to not like the taste of the final product, we keep voting to purchase the same ingredients.