In Re: J.W., 16-0540

Juvenile petition filed Nov 2015 charging J.W. with multiple offenses arising from burglaries of a church and a planned second burglary; J.W. waived preliminary hearing and was detained at Gene Spadaro Juvenile Center.
Jury trial in March 2016: J.W. adjudicated delinquent for one count breaking and entering, one count petit larceny, and two counts conspiracy to commit breaking and entering.
Probation ordered a dispositional report; at the May 2016 dispositional hearing J.W. requested placement at Summit Academy (PA) and a psychological evaluation; MDT and probation officer reportedly recommended a structured program.
Court denied placement with parents (parents divorced, lack of supervision; J.W. lived with relatives including an uncle the court believed was involved in offenses) and denied Summit Academy placement, finding in-state facilities could address needs.
Court placed J.W. in custody of Division of Juvenile Services for placement in a juvenile facility until age 21, citing seriousness of offenses, denial of responsibility, lack of familial support, and a high YLS/CMI recidivism risk score.
J.W. moved to modify disposition (Aug 2016); circuit court denied. J.W. appealed arguing disposition was arbitrary/capricious and not the least-restrictive alternative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dispositional placement was arbitrary or capricious	J.W.: court ignored less-restrictive options and denied requested psychological evaluation; parents would accept custody; Summit Academy suitable	State: court considered family history, supervision issues, YLS/CMI risk, educational/trade needs, and in-state options sufficient	Court: Not arbitrary or capricious; disposition affirmed
Whether court violated least-restrictive-alternative requirement (WV Code §49-4-714(b))	J.W.: less-restrictive placements (parents, DHHR facility, Summit Academy) were appropriate	State: court evaluated rehabilitation prospects, family situation, and need for structured environment; in-state facilities available	Court: Placement was the least-restrictive appropriate alternative given facts
Whether out-of-state placement (Summit Academy) was permissible/necessary	J.W.: Summit Academy should have been allowed/considered	State: Preference for in-state facilities; out-of-state requires specific findings of necessity	Court: Out-of-state placement unnecessary; in-state facilities could meet needs
Whether denial of psychological evaluation prejudiced disposition	J.W.: evaluation needed for appropriate placement	State: Court had sufficient evidence (YLS/CMI, family history, MDT input) to decide without it	Court: No reversible error from denial; ample findings supported disposition

State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings and discretion)
State v. Georgius, 225 W.Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (2010) (application of Head standard)
State ex rel. D.D.H. v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 448, 269 S.E.2d 401 (1980) (court must consider reasonable prospects for rehabilitation when selecting least-restrictive disposition)
State v. Kirk N., 214 W.Va. 730, 591 S.E.2d 288 (2003) (citing Dostert rule on dispositional considerations)
State v. Frazier, 198 W.Va. 678, 482 S.E.2d 663 (1996) (preference for in-state juvenile placement unless out-of-state is necessary)
E.H. v. Matin, 201 W.Va. 463, 498 S.E.2d 35 (1997) (requirements for findings when making out-of-state placement)