State v. Taylor M.S., 2013AP1337, District 2, 10/2/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication); case activity
The juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in deciding to waive jurisdiction over Taylor’s charges, rejecting Taylor’s contention that the court failed to consider all of the factors in § 938.18(5), in particular the availability of treatment and services as required by § 938.18(5)(c):
¶6 We agree with the State that the circuit court sufficiently addressed the adequacy and availability of services. Neuenfeldt [a county DHHS social workder] testified about Taylor’s treatment history, including an in-home therapist, New Visions Wilderness therapy camp, the Intensive Supervision Program, secure detention (two or three times), and electronic monitoring (at least three times). Neuenfeldt told of Taylor’s refusal to follow the supervision rules and her continued truancy. Even in the face of the current delinquency petition about the burglary (Taylor’s second burglary charge), Taylor continued to be noncompliant with her conditions of supervision. Given this background, it was not an erroneous exercise of discretion for the circuit court to conclude that some of the otherwise available options are not adequate and suitable for Taylor.
¶7 Taylor’s counsel questioned Neuenfeldt at length about different programs in which Taylor could conceivably be placed. That does not mean that the circuit court had to individually address each of those options. The circuit court is not obliged by para. (c) to address every imaginable treatment option. The circuit court need only explain that it has considered the “adequacy and suitability of facilities, services and procedures available,” not any and all facilities, services or procedures. Furthermore, the circuit court based its decision on the case as a whole, not just the para. (c) consideration of adequate and suitable services. …
