OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS v. WALKER

OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS v. WALKER
2004 OK 29
Case Number: 100432
Decided: 04/13/2004
No. 100432 (surviving number), No. 100339 (cons. w/100432)
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

FOR PUBLICATION IN O.B.J. ONLY.  NOT RELEASED FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS, Petitioner,
v.
THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. WALKER, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF CARTER COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondent.
IN THE MATTER OF M.R.C., an alleged delinquent.
OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS, Appellant.
v.
HONORABLE THOMAS S. WALKER, Appellee.

ORDER

Because appeal No. 100,339 presents the same substantial argument and seeks the same relief as this original proceeding that challenges a trial court order which operates to direct the discretionary functions of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, an agency under the executive department of government, the appeal is recast into an application for writ of prohibition. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tidwell,

Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let a writ issue prohibiting the respondent judge, The Honorable Thomas S. Walker, from pursuing measures relating to enforcement of the respondent's January 16, 2004 order in that cause now pending before the District Court in Carter County, which is styled in the Matter of M.R.C., an alleged delinquent, and there docketed as No. JDL-2003-77, against the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs only. Under the circumstances presented in this original proceeding, the district court is powerless to control, by contempt or otherwise, the discretionary acts and decisions of an agency in the executive department of government. Article IV §1 Okl. Const.; Fields v. Driesel,

No other aspect of the identified juvenile proceeding stands affected by this order.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2004.

/S/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

OPALA, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, BOUDREAU and EDMONDSON, JJ., CONCUR.

WATT, C.J., KAUGER and WINCHESTER, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT.

KAUGER, J., with whom Watt, C.J. and Winchester, J. join, concurring in result:

¶1 I agree with the majority that, under the facts presented, the district court lacked authority to issue a contempt citation. Nevertheless, the order should not be read to prohibit the review, by the judicial branch, of all acts which a state agency may characterize as "discretionary". I would assume jurisdiction and explain to the trial courts how the duly adopted Detention and Disposition Guidelines for Juvenile Court Judges, No. SCAD-96-3 (July 8, 1996) (Guidelines) may be applied without violating separation of powers principles. I would also afford the appellant, Office of Juvenile Affairs (Juvenile Affairs), an opportunity to demonstrate how, through the implementation of the Guidelines, trial courts may compromise Juvenile Affairs' ability to qualify for grants from the United States Department of Justice.1 An examination of this issue might well require a reconsideration by the Legislature or this Court, through an amendment of the Guidelines, to help avoid the loss of funds necessary for the operation of state programs.

FOOTNOTES

1