Opinion
No. 37279
Decided January 3, 1962.
Juvenile Court — Jurisdiction of delinquent minors — Commitment to custody of Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction — Director's duty to accept minor — Mandamus.
1. The Juvenile Court has exclusive original jurisdiction of delinquent minors.
2. Where the Juvenile Court, after a proper hearing, determines that a minor requires state institutional care and guardianship and commits the minor to the care and custody of the Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction, the Director of Mental Hygiene and Correction is under a clear legal duty to accept the minor as a ward of the department, and the department becomes vested with the exclusive guardianship of such minor.
IN MANDAMUS.
This is an original action in mandamus in this court.
The relator, Benjamin S. Schwartz, in his capacity as Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Juvenile Division, and also in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Robert Haines, the Director of Mental Hygiene and Correction, to obey the commitment order of the Juvenile Court of Hamilton County committing a minor to the care and custody of the Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction under the provisions of Chapter 2151 and Section 5119.18, Revised Code.
The respondent admits that the relator, after a proper hearing, determined that the minor required state institutional care and issued a proper and lawful commitment order directed to the respondent.
Respondent admits that he refused to honor the relator's commitment order and refused to accept the minor.
Respondent contends that he had established a quota system for admission of minors to the Boys' Industrial School, in order to reduce the overcrowded conditions there, and that he is not compelled to admit minors properly committed by a proper court when there are overcrowdings to the extent that he can not carry out the duties imposed upon him by law to bring about the "reformation and preparation for usefulness" of the inmates of the Boys' Industrial School.
It is agreed that the Boys' Industrial School has been badly overcrowded, and that to reduce this overcrowding the Governor of the state directed the Director of Mental Hygiene and Correction to put into effect the quota system for admission.
Mr. C. Watson Hover, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. George S. Heitzler, for relator.
Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, and Mr. Theodore R. Saker, for respondent.
There is but a single question to be decided here: Is the Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction required by law to accept juveniles lawfully committed to it by the Juvenile Courts of this state?
The Juvenile Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over delinquent minors. (This power is derived from Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio, and the court is established and its jurisdiction defined by Chapter 2151, Revised Code, and Section 2151.23, Revised Code, provides exclusive original jurisdiction over delinquent minors.)
Section 5119.18, Revised Code, is controlling in this case. It is mandatory in its requirement of acceptance of a minor by the department when the court determines that such minor requires state institutional care. The Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction is under a clear legal duty to accept the minor who is committed to it by a Juvenile Court after such a finding.
The respondent here argues that he lacks space for housing delinquents and providing them with the treatment and educational and vocational training required by law for reformation and rehabilitation of delinquent minors.
The court recognizes the difficult position of the Director of Mental Hygiene and Correction. The court is also cognizant of the plight of the judge when the state refuses to accept a minor whose condition demands institutional care.
Neither the Juvenile Court judge nor the Director of Mental Hygiene and Correction has the power to deal with the problem of lack of space and facilities, or the lack of personnel to insure custody and training of delinquents.
This court cannot supply the answer to that problem. The appropriation of public money to build, equip, maintain and staff facilities to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents who need state institutional care is a legislative problem and ultimately a question to be decided by the electorate.
The law is clear. The duty to accept a minor found to need institutional care by a judge of a Juvenile Court and committed to the Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction is mandatory upon the Director of Mental Hygiene and Correction.
Writ allowed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL and HERBERT, JJ., concur.