In the Interest of N.R.W., 482 S.W.3d 473

Juvenile (N.R.W.), age 16, was charged in July 2013 with possession of a controlled substance (over 35 grams of marijuana) and possession of drug paraphernalia; the court adjudicated him delinquent after an adjudication hearing on Sept. 10, 2013.
No on-the-record inquiry or advisement about the juvenile’s or parents’ right to counsel was made at the adjudication hearing or the first dispositional hearing on Oct. 15, 2013.
The court ordered outpatient substance-abuse treatment as disposition; Juvenile failed to attend, prompting a motion to modify disposition on Dec. 11, 2013.
Notice for the modification hearing informed Juvenile of his right to counsel and right to court-appointed counsel; Juvenile requested an appointed attorney and one was appointed to represent him (but not his parents).
At the Dec. 23, 2013 modification hearing Father requested appointed counsel and a continuance; the court denied appointment for Father (treating him as not a “party”) and denied the continuance, then committed Juvenile to the Division of Youth Services until age 18.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the juvenile court failed to comply with statutory and rule-based requirements protecting the juvenile’s and parents’ right to counsel.

Issue	Juvenile's Argument	State/Court's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile was denied right to counsel at adjudication	Adjudication proceeded without advising Juvenile or parents of right to counsel; any waiver was not on the record	Court record lacked any claim of a valid on-the-record waiver	Reversal required for failure to inform juvenile and parents and to obtain a knowing, intelligent waiver
Whether parents (Father) were entitled to appointed counsel	Father requested counsel and was indigent; needed counsel for a full and fair hearing	Trial court ruled Father was not a party and thus not entitled to appointed counsel	Court erred: parents are "parties" under juvenile rules and may be entitled to appointed counsel if indigent and necessary for a full and fair hearing
Whether a parent’s presence substitutes for counsel for juvenile	Father participated (questioned witnesses) — sufficed to protect juvenile’s rights	Participation by non-lawyer parent does not cure court’s duty to advise and secure valid waiver	Nonlawyer parental participation does not waive the court’s obligation; reversal still required
Whether counsel’s withdrawal at disposition was appropriate	(Implied) court-appointed counsel moved to withdraw after modification hearing	No basis in record showing good cause for withdrawal; counsel should serve all stages absent good cause	Not resolved on merits but noted: withdrawal must be for good cause and counsel generally continues through appeal

In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. banc 2008) (right to counsel in juvenile proceedings requires strict, literal statutory compliance)
In re D.L., 999 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (presumption that waiver is invalid if not shown on the record; State bears burden to show waiver was knowing and intelligent)
In re C.F., 340 S.W.3d 296 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (parental participation does not cure court’s duty to comply with juvenile counsel statutes)
In re MM., 320 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (standard of review for juvenile court-tried cases)
T.C.T. v. Shafinia, 351 S.W.3d 34 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (mootness and collateral-consequence exception analyses)
In re A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (juvenile delinquency adjudications can have significant collateral consequences; exception to mootness)
State v. Sapien, 337 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (application of juvenile records exception in later adult proceedings)