N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-2-19
A. At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the court may make and include in the dispositional judgment its findings on the following:
B. If a child is found to be delinquent, the court may enter its judgment making any of the following dispositions for the supervision, care and rehabilitation of the child:
(1) transfer legal custody to the department, an agency responsible for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children, which shall receive the child at a facility designated by the secretary of the department as a juvenile reception facility. The department shall thereafter determine the appropriate placement, supervision and rehabilitation program for the child. The judge may include recommendations for placement of the child. Commitments are subject to limitations and modifications set forth in Section 32A-2-23 NMSA 1978. The types of commitments include:
History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-2-19, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 48; 1995, ch. 204, § 3; 1995, ch. 206, § 13; 1996, ch. 85, § 4; 2003, ch. 225, § 10; 2003, ch. 239, § 5; 2005, ch. 189, § 16; 2009, ch. 239, § 20; 2021, ch. 15, § 4.
Cross references. — For the procedure governing disciplinary hearings, see Rule 10-246 NMRA.
For escape from custody of the children, youth and families department, see 30-22-11.1 NMSA 1978.
For aggravated escape from the custody of the children, youth and families department, see 30-22-11.2 NMSA 1978.
Compiler's note. — Laws 2005, ch. 189 both amended and repealed Laws 2003, ch. 225, § 10. Laws 2005, ch. 189, § 77 repealed Laws 2003, ch. 225, § 10, effective June 17, 2005. Laws 2005, ch. 189, § 16 amended Laws 2003, ch. 225, § 10.
The 2021 amendment, effective June 18, 2021, eliminated the imposition of fines for children found to be delinquent; and in Subsection B, after "the court may", deleted "impose a fine not to exceed the fine that could be imposed if the child were an adult and may", and in Paragraph B(3), after "ordering restitution or", deleted "imposing a fine not to exceed the fine that could be imposed if the child were an adult or any combination of these dispositions".
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A, after "individuals involved", added the remainder of the sentence; and in Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraph (1) of Subsection B, changed "parole" to "supervised release".
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, in Subsection B(1), deleted the former provision that the court could enter a judgment making any disposition that is authorized for the disposition of a neglected or abused child; in Subsection B(1)(a). provided that a commitment may include a short term commitment in a facility for the care and rehabilitation of adjudicated delinquent children, that not more than nine months shall be served at the facility and not less than ninety days on parole unless a petition has been filed to extend the commitment, the commitment has been extended pursuant to a consent decree, or parole is revoked; Subsection B(1)(b), provided that with respect to a long term commitment may not be more than twenty one months at a facility for the care and rehabilitation of adjudicated delinquent children and not less than ninety days on parole unless the commitment has been extended pursuant to a consent decree or parole is revoked; and added Subsection G, which provided that the court may make an abuse or neglect report for investigation and proceedings to a local law enforcement agency, the children, youth and families department, or a tribal law enforcement or social service agency for an Indian child residing in Indian country.
The 2003 amendment, effective April 6, 2003, — added "or an ignition interlock license pursuant to the Ignition Interlock Licensing Act" following "Section 66-5-35 NMSA 1978" in the last sentence of Subsection G. Laws 2003, ch. 225, § 10, effective July 1, 2003, also amended this section. The section was set out as amended by Laws 2003, ch. 239, § 5. See 12-1-8 NMSA 1978.
The 1996 amendment, effective July 1, 1996, substituted "parents" for "parent" in Paragraphs A(1) and (5); added Subparagraph B(1)(c) and redesignated the following subparagraph accordingly; and added Subsection H.
The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, deleted a provision regarding commitments of six months or less in long-term care facilities from Paragraph B(2)(a), and added Paragraph B(2)(c). Laws 1995, ch. 204, § 3, effective July 1, 1995, also amended this section. The section was set out as amended by Laws 1995, ch. 206, § 13. See 12-1-8 NMSA 1978.
Commitment to age 21. — Subsection B(1)(c) of this section does not say that commitment to age 21 is authorized only for children who fit the definition of youthful offenders as set forth in Subsection I of Section 32A-2-3 NMSA 1978. State v. Indie C., 2006-NMCA-014, 139 N.M. 80, 128 P.3d 508, cert. denied, 2006-NMCERT-001, 139 N.M. 273, 131 P.3d 660.
Children’s Code does not place limitations on type of probation conditions the court may order. State v. Wacey C., 2004-NMCA-029, 135 N.M. 186, 86 P.3d 611.
Geographical and temporal limitations of probation condition do not bring it in the realm of banishment. State v. Wacey C., 2004-NMCA-029, 135 N.M. 186, 86 P.3d 611.
Probation condition does not amount to banishment where child’s probation condition does not require him to leave the state or country entirely and does not trigger concerns about interstate or international relations, child’s restriction is limited to the period of his probation, not to exceed two years, and the probation condition was fashioned in response to concerns for both the child’s welfare, as residents talked about arming themselves against the child, and the welfare of the area, as child had plans for more serious regional criminal activity. State v. Wacey C., 2004-NMCA-029, 135 N.M. 186, 86 P.3d 611.
Finding required for adjudication as delinquent. — A finding that a child is in need of care or rehabilitation is required in order to adjudicate the child to be a delinquent. State v. Doe, 1980-NMCA-148, 95 N.M. 90, 619 P.2d 194, superseded by statute, State v. Michael R., 1988-NMCA-087, 107 N.M. 794, 765 P.2d 767.
Amenability to treatment. — Section 31-18-15.3F NMSA 1978 gives the district court the discretion to impose an adult sentence as indicated in Section 32A-2-20 NMSA 1978 based on a finding that a child is not amenable to treatment. If the district court finds the child is amenable to treatment, then the district court should impose a juvenile disposition in accordance with this section. State v. Muniz, 2003-NMSC-021, 134 N.M. 152, 74 P.3d 86, superseded by statute, State v. Jones, 2010-NMSC-012, 148 N.M. 1, 229 P.3d 474.
Consecutive commitments. — The children's court is not authorized to order consecutive commitments from one dispositional hearing, regardless of the number of petitions filed by the state. State v. Adam M., 2000-NMCA-049, 129 N.M. 146, 2 P.3d 883, cert. denied, 129 N.M. 249, 4 P.3d 1240.
Non-consecutive commitments. — The imposition of two non-consecutive commitments based on separate petitions stemming from different underlying behavior during one dispositional hearing is authorized by Subsection B(2)(b) (now B(1)(b))of this section. State v. Jose S., 2005-NMCA-094, 138 N.M. 44, 116 P.3d 115, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-007, 138 N.M. 145, 117 P.3d 951.
Indeterminate commitment unauthorized. — The children's court has no authority, pursuant to a plea agreement, to commit a child who has been adjudicated delinquent to the legal custody of the children, youth and families department for an indeterminate period up to the age of eighteen. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Paul G., 2006-NMCA-038, 139 N.M. 258, 131 P.3d 108.
Authority to order detentions. — The children’s court had authority under its contempt power to order detentions. State v. Steven B., 2004-NMCA-086, 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-007, 136 N.M. 452, 99 P.3d 1164.
Children’s court may use its contempt power as an alternative to probation revocation when the court places a child in detention for violation of grade court program, a condition of probation. State v. Steven B., 2004-NMCA-086, 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-007, 136 N.M. 452, 99 P.3d 1164.
The children’s court sentence of two weekends of detention, one for each of two violations, was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Steven B., 2004-NMCA-086, 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-007, 136 N.M. 452, 99 P.3d 1164.
Placement in a local detention facility is an alternative disposition available to the court and is not a limitation on the conditions of probation the court may prescribe. State v. Henry L., 1990-NMCA-030, 109 N.M. 792, 791 P.2d 67, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271.
Without adjudication of delinquency child may not be transferred to custody of boys' school, because the school is an institution for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children. State v. Doe, 1980-NMCA-148, 95 N.M. 90, 619 P.2d 194.
Limited detention as condition of probation. — The language "place child on probation under those conditions and limitations as the court may prescribe" is sufficiently expansive to contemplate the imposition of limited detention as a condition of probation. State v. Henry L., 1990-NMCA-030, 109 N.M. 792, 791 P.2d 67, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271.
Revocation of probation to punish for contempt. — The inherent power of the courts to punish for contempt does not validate a children's court order incarcerating a child found in need of supervision for contempt in violating probation, where such order contravenes the purpose of a reasonable Children's Code provision authorizing incarceration only after three occasions of probation violations have been found by the court. State v. Julia S., 1986-NMCA-039, 104 N.M. 222, 719 P.2d 449.
Child is not entitled to precommitment credit for time served while on probation. State v. Dennis F., 1986-NMCA-081, 104 N.M. 619, 725 P.2d 595.
First-degree murder. — The Delinquency Act authorizes an initial commitment to the age of 21 of a child who has been adjudicated delinquent for first-degree murder when the child was under 14 years of age. State v. Indie C., 2006-NMCA-014, 139 N.M. 80, 128 P.3d 508, cert. denied, 2006-NMCERT-001, 139 N.M. 273, 131 P.3d 660.
Time limitation on custody transfer void. — While the court possesses the power to transfer legal custody of delinquent children to an agency responsible for their care and rehabilitation, any attempt by the court to impose a time limitation on the transfer of custody, even if well within the time limitations already authorized by statute, is void as being in excess of the court's jurisdiction. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-37.
Law reviews. — For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases Under the New Rules," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976).
For note, "State v. Muniz: Authorizing Adult Sentences of Juveniles Absent a Conviction that Authorizes an Adult Sentence", see 35 N.M.L. Rev. 229 (2005)
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.— 47 Am. Jur. 2d Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children § 82 et seq.
Discrimination in punishment for same offense between juveniles and mature offenders, 3 A.L.R. 1614, 8 A.L.R. 854.
Constitutionality of statute committing child to reformatory without parents' consent, 60 A.L.R. 1342.
Notice and hearing to parent before commitment of delinquent children, 76 A.L.R. 247.
Admissibility at criminal prosecution of expert testimony on battering parent syndrome, 43 A.L.R.4th 1203.
Defense of infancy in juvenile delinquency proceedings, 83 A.L.R.4th 1135.