Dismiss or Stay Proceedings

Section 3.1

Judicial Officers Should Dismiss or, Alternatively, Stay Proceedings When Community-based Services or Other Formal or Informal Systems Approaches Would Circumvent the Need for Continued Court Jurisdiction

As was discussed in Section 2.1, research shows that formal court system processing, in and of itself, can have a negative impact on youth, increasing the likelihood of future justice system involvement. Diversion programs have a more positive effect for low-level delinquency offenders and youth charged with status offenses than formal court involvement and are more cost-effective.  In addition, the best outcomes for public safety occur when the least restrictive interventions are offered.1  For these reasons, at the beginning of a status offense case the judge should critically assess whether court involvement will help the child and family resolve the issues that bring them before the court.  To do so, the judge must ensure first responders, pre-court service providers and petitioning parties have made reasonable efforts to provide services and supports to children and families before petitioning a case.  This may include educating petitioners from the bench and through guides or brochures about what the court process is and what it can and cannot offer the child and family.  This is particularly important in jurisdictions where parents can file status offense petitions directly, but may have little or no knowledge about the negative consequences for the child and family if court involvement is pursued. 

When making a “reasonable efforts” determination, the judge should decide whether it is appropriate to continue jurisdiction, dismiss the case or stay proceedings pending the implementation of community-based assistance that may help the child and family resolve their problems outside of court involvement.  The judge should not accept jurisdiction over an alleged status offender when the cause of the child’s alleged behavior is rooted in abuse, neglect, victimization or disability.  He or she should also not accept jurisdiction when pre-court diversion efforts were insufficient or inappropriate to the family’s needs, when state statutory criteria for assuming jurisdiction are not met or when state or federal entitlements preclude status offense jurisdiction.  At minimum, judges should ask:

Determining whether to dismiss or stay proceedings will require a case-by-case assessment of the facts that brought the case to the court, the level of effort made by pre-court service providers to engage the family in services, and the extent of the child’s and family’s needs and willingness to engage in voluntary services. 

  • What efforts were made prior to a court petition being filed to determine the cause of the alleged status behavior?  This may include questioning the relevant parties about the extent to which service providers interviewed the family and child to understand the reason behind the referral.  It may also include questions about the extent to which the child was screened or assessed, depending on the facts that brought the case to the court, as well as a determination of whether some systemic failure, as opposed to the child’s behavior, brought the case before the court.
  • What assistance was offered to the child and family to avoid formal court processing?  This may include questions about whether the child and/or family were offered services, whether a treatment or service plan was developed and how often service providers met with the child or family to assess progress and overcome barriers.  It may also include a determination of whether the services offered met the child and family’s needs and whether assistance not offered or available may have been more suitable. 
  • Were statutory pre-requisites met to assume jurisdiction over the case?  This may include a review of the facts in the petition and any other available documents to assess whether the behaviors alleged in fact meet the statutory definition of the status offense charged.  It may also include an inquiry into whether statutory pre-requisites to court involvement were followed, such as whether education or justice system responders engaged in statutorily required processes before petitioning cases to court.
  • Was the child entitled to certain protections under state or federal law that would circumvent the need for formal court processing?  For example, the child may be eligible for certain services, assistance and protections under Medicaid, the Indian Child Welfare Act, federal right to education laws or the state constitution in lieu of court involvement.  See Section III, Standards 2 and 11 for more information.


Determining whether to dismiss or stay proceedings will require a case-by-case assessment of the facts that brought the case to the court, the level of effort made by pre-court service providers to engage the family in services, and the extent of the child’s and family’s needs and willingness to engage in voluntary services. 


1 The Truth about Consequences—Studies Point towards Sparing Use of Formal Juvenile Justice System Processing and Incarceration. (January 2012) Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network (citing  Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Sarah Guckenburg, “Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency.” Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2010:1, pp. 32-38 (January 29, 2010)); see also Uberto Gatti et al. (2009) “Iatrogenic Effects of Juvenile Justice,” 50 Child Psychology and Psychiatry 991, 994.