In re: A.B., 148 A.3d 371

Appellant A.B., a 15-year-old juvenile, admitted involvement in a second-degree assault that fractured the victim’s nose and jaw; plea resolved juvenile petition.
State sought $19,470 in restitution for medical expenses and lost wages, to be split among three respondents; court ultimately ordered A.B. to pay $6,491.33 (one-third).
Restitution hearing elicited evidence of A.B.’s financial situation: no employment history, no bank accounts, lives with aunt/grandmother who provide support; family gross income $35,000–$49,999; receives modest food stamps.
Social History and a psychological evaluation documented A.B.’s school performance, reading disorder, and that employment would be age-appropriate and rehabilitative.
Trial court placed A.B. on indefinite probation, ordered restitution (no payment schedule), and the juvenile court retained jurisdiction until A.B. turned 21; A.B. appealed, arguing the court failed to inquire into his ability to pay.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by failing to inquire into A.B.’s ability to pay restitution	Court did not make any inquiry into A.B.’s ability to pay before ordering restitution	Argument not preserved; alternatively, the record contained sufficient evidence of A.B.’s inability-to-pay factors so the order was not an abuse of discretion	No error: court considered evidence of ability to pay (elicited through counsel and witnesses); restitution order affirmed

Robey v. State, 397 Md. 449 (restitution in juvenile system is rehabilitative)
In re Don Mc., 344 Md. 194 (ability to pay is a relevant factor for restitution)
In re Earl F., 208 Md. App. 269 (juvenile restitution should not overshadow rehabilitation)
In re Delric H., 150 Md. App. 234 (standard of review and restitution principles)
Brecker v. State, 304 Md. 36 (preservation requirement for challenging restitution on appeal)
North v. North, 102 Md. App. 1 (abuse-of-discretion standard description)
Coles v. State, 290 Md. 296 (no requirement that trial judge personally examine finances to preserve issue)
In re Levon A., 124 Md. App. 103 (importance of ability to pay without mandating who elicits evidence)