IN RE FIVE MINORS (CHILD WELFARE)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court construed NRS 62.211(1)(g), which provides that a juvenile court "may . . . require the child to participate in a program designed to provide restitution." It held that this permissive authorization does not imply that restitution is forbidden unless a formal "program" is devised; the statute sets out one option, not an exclusive precondition. Emphasizing the state's public policy favoring compensation of crime victims and finding no basis to distinguish juvenile from adult criminality on this point, the court endorsed the juvenile court's reliance on its inherent power to order reasonable consequences for adjudicated minors, so long as the consequences are reasonable and do not impose an unreasonable restraint on liberty or cruel and unusual punishment. The court recognized limits on restitution (e.g., unreasonable or excessive amounts, or threat of incarceration) but held those issues were not presented, and affirmed each of the five consolidated appeals.

In plain language

This case consolidated five juvenile court appeals. In each, a juvenile who had been found delinquent was ordered to pay restitution (money to compensate the victims of the juvenile's wrongdoing). The juveniles argued that the juvenile court did not have the power to order them to pay restitution directly to victims, contending that restitution was only allowed as part of a formal "program." The Nevada Supreme Court rejected that argument and affirmed all five orders. The court pointed to the statute allowing juvenile courts to require a child to participate in a restitution program and explained that this permissive language does not forbid ordering restitution outside a formal program. The court emphasized that compensating crime victims is an important public policy, that there is no reason to treat juvenile wrongdoing differently from adult wrongdoing in this respect, and that the juvenile court has inherent power to order reasonable consequences for delinquent minors. The court noted there are limits - restitution cannot be unreasonable or excessive, and a juvenile cannot be threatened with incarceration over it - but those problems were not present in these appeals.