COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. C.J., A CHILD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : FEBRUARY 17, 2005
TO BE PUBLISHED
~sUyrrmr (&Iurf of
2002-SC-1009-DG
J~
A MR,
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2001-CA-1507-DG
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO . 2001-XX-0031
V.
C.J ., A CHILD
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE JOHNSTONE
AFFIRMING
In January 2001, C .J ., a student at Shawnee High School in Louisville, pulled a
"butterfly knife" on another student during a verbal altercation . After being Mirandized,
C.J . gave a statement admitting to having the knife on school property . When C.J .
voiced an intention to kill himself, he was admitted to Norton-Kosair Hospital where he
remained for eight days . C .J . thereafter resumed attendance at Shawnee High School.
C .J . was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a weapon on school
property and second-degree wanton endangerment . At his arraignment in the juvenile
session of the Jefferson District Court, the court denied the Commonwealth's motion to
detain C.J ., and instead ruled that the case be resolved by informal adjustment
pursuant to KRS 610 .100(3).' The Commonwealth objected on the grounds that the
victim, Shawnee High School, had not been notified or consulted as required by statute .
Nonetheless, the juvenile court requested that a public defender step in and explain to
C .J . the process of an informal adjustment . C.J. thereafter agreed to surrender his
knife, to continue the counseling he had begun after the incident, and to perform ten
hours of community service within thirty days .
The Commonwealth then attempted to appeal the juvenile court's decision .
However, both the Jefferson Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals held that no appeal
may be taken from an informal adjustment . This Court thereafter granted discretionary
review .
The sole issue2 before us is whether the Unified Juvenile Code allows for an
appeal from an informal adjustment by the juvenile court. The question is one of
statutory interpretation, specifically whether an informal adjustment constitutes a final
action by the juvenile court. We conclude that it does not.
KRS 23A.080(1) provides that "[a] direct appeal may be taken from District Court
to Circuit Court from any final action of the District Court ." With regard to the Juvenile
Code, the legislature has specifically designated what types of proceedings are subject
to appeal. KRS 620.155 (appeal by any interested party aggrieved by a proceeding
'KRS 610.100(3) provides : "Upon the court's motion or the motion of any party,
an informal adjustment may be made at any time during the proceedings and with the
victim and with those persons specified in KRS 610.070 having prior notification of the
motion."
2The Commonwealth raises a second argument concerning the merits of the
informal adjustment, and specifically, whether the juvenile court followed the statutory
requirements . However, the issue was not properly preserved in the lower courts and
will not be addressed herein .
under KRS 610 .010(1)(e), involving a dependent, neglected, or abused child) ; KRS
625 .110 (an order or judgment involuntarily terminating parental rights) ; KRS 610.130
(dispositional orders, as defined in KRS 610 .110, pertaining to status and public
offenders) . The Commonwealth focuses on the language of KRS 610 .130, which
provides :
Unless otherwise exempted, an appeal to the circuit court may be
taken as a matter of right from the juvenile session of the district
court from dispositional orders under KRS 610 .110. The appeal
shall be taken in the manner provided in the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and the circuit court shall, in the best interest of the
child, hear such cases expeditiously.
The Commonwealth posits that the language of KRS 610.130 is permissive rather than
restrictive, and therefore an informal adjustment is a final disposition although not
included within the dispositional orders under KRS 610.110 .
Because C.J . was brought before the juvenile court as a public offender, we
agree that he would have fallen within the scope of KRS 610 .130 had the charges
against him been adjudicated and subject to a dispositional order . However, by its
definition, an informal adjustment is neither an adjudication nor disposition . Rather,
KRS 600.020(28) defines an "informal adjustment" as :
[A]n agreement reached among the parties, with consultation, but
not the consent, of the victim of the crime or other persons
specified in KRS 610.070 if the victim chooses not to or is unable to
participate, after a petition has been filed, which is approved by the
court, that the best interest of the child would be served without
formal adjudication and disposition [.]
(Emphasis added) . Clearly, by its plain language, an informal adjustment is not "a final
or appealable . . . order adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action or
proceeding . . . ." CR 54 .01 .
Looking beyond the technical language of the statute, we consider also the
practical ramifications of our conclusion. As stated by the Court of Appeals in this case :
An informal adjustment is . . . a conditional agreement to
abate the petition against the juvenile defendant. While the
conditions are pending, the matter is simply in abeyance . If the
juvenile satisfies the conditions, agreed to by the parties and
approved by the court, then no further action is taken on the
petition. At no point is there a final action by the district court ; there
is rather a decision not to act. And there is no disposition (for
which both adjudication and dispositional hearings are required), as
is indicated by the fact that KRS 610.110 (on juvenile dispositions)
includes no reference to informal adjustments .
See also Commonwealth v. S .M . , 769 A.2d 542, 544 (Pa. 2001) ("[i]f a trial court wishes
to supervise a juvenile for a period of time prior to entering a final order, the Juvenile
Act provides several alternatives by which to do so, including informal adjustment . . . .") .
There is simply no language in Kentucky's Juvenile Code authorizing an appeal
of an informal adjustment . Had the legislature intended to include such language, it
certainly could have done so . By omitting informal adjustments from those matters that
are appealable, the inference is that the legislature intended no appeal be allowed from
an informal adjustment by the juvenile court. Bailey v. Reeves, 662 S .W.2d 832 (Ky.
1984); Smith v. Wedding , 303 S.W .2d 322 (Ky. 1957) .
Because no appeal from an informal adjustment is available, the
Commonwealth, if it desires review of such action, is required to bring an original
proceeding in the circuit court in the nature of a writ of mandamus or prohibition .
Commonwealth v. Williams , 995 S.W .2d 400 (Ky. App. 1999) ; SCR 1 .040(6); CR 81 .
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed .
Lambert, C .J . ; Cooper, Graves, Scott, and Wintersheimer, JJ., concur. Keller, J .,
dissents by separate opinion .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
Teresa Young
Jeanne Anderson
Special Assistant Attorneys General
514 West Liberty Street
Louisville, KY 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Daniel T. Goyette ,
Frank William Heft, Jr.
Office of the Louisville Metro Public Defender
200 Advocacy Plaza
719 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
RENDERED : FEBRUARY 17, 2005
TO BE PUBLISHED
,$ixprmxcr (9ourf of Arnfurkg
2002-SC-1009-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2001-CA-1507-DG
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2001-XX-0031
V.
C .J ., A CHILD
APPELLEE
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLER
Although l agree with the majority's analysis on the ability to appeal from
an informal adjustment, I dissent because the juvenile court did not make an
informal adjustment of C .J .'s case, a dispositive issue that the majority avoids .
An "informal adjustment"
means an agreement reached among the parties, with
consultation, but not the consent, of the victim of the
crime or other persons specified in KRS 610 .070 if the
victim chooses not to or is unable to participate, after
a petition has been filed, which is approved by the
court, that the best interest of the child would be
served without formal adjudication or disposition .'
The Commonwealth, undisputedly a party, did not agree to an informal
adjustment ; therefore, it was not possible for the juvenile court to informally
adjust C .J.'s case . Accordingly, by "adjusting" the case over the
Commonwealth's objection, the juvenile court in effect entered a formal
1 KRS 600 .020(31) (emphasis added).
adjudication and disposition, and thus the Commonwealth had the right to appeal
from the juvenile court's disposition of C.J .'s case .2
2 KRS 23A.080(1 ) .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.