Opinion
A22-0581
12-09-2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. R. V., Child.
McLeod County District Court File No. 43-JV-20-177
Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Connolly, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
KEVIN G. ROSS JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. After juvenile E.R.V. pleaded guilty to a charge of first-degree property damage, the district court ordered a continuance without a delinquency adjudication and placed her on supervised probation.
2. E.R.V.'s probation officer filed three probation-violation reports alleging that she failed to follow parental and school rules, abstain from using controlled substances, complete mental-health treatment and chemical-dependency programming, complete community service, pay restitution, and attend school and perform up to her academic abilities.
3. During her three probation-violation hearings, E.R.V. admitted to seven of the alleged violations. The district court revoked her probation status and adjudicated her delinquent in March 2022 after the third hearing.
4. We now affirm the adjudication. An order adjudicating a child delinquent after a continuance without adjudication is a probation revocation governed by Juvenile Delinquency Procedure Rule 15.07. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 4(E). We review a juvenile probation-revocation order for an abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of R.V., 702 N.W.2d 294, 298 (Minn.App. 2005).
5. If a child admits to violating the court's order, the court may adjudicate the child delinquent. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.07, subd. 4(D)(2). E.R.V. admitted to violating probation requirements, warranting adjudication under the rule. And because E.R.V.'s nineteenth birthday was less than three months away, the district court had little time remaining for juvenile supervision. See Minn. Stat. § 260B.193, subd. 5(a) (2022).
6. The district court had also passed its 360-day limit for a continuance without adjudication, having first ordered a continuance without adjudication on December 8, 2020. See Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 4(B).
7. We need not decide E.R.V.'s arguments that a rehabilitative purpose must precede an adjudication and that adjudicating her serves no rehabilitative purpose because, even if a rehabilitative purpose is required, the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding that rehabilitative efforts would not be successful or possible under the time constraints.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.