Ruling says judges may jail runaways

Judges may throw kids in jail when they repeatedly run away from home, under a ruling Thursday by the Washington Supreme Court.

The ruling, in the case of two Yakima County teens who were in foster care, affirms judges' broad power to lock up runaways, if necessary until their 18th birthdays. But there's a hitch: The power can be used only as a last resort.

Mental-health experts and child advocates say the ruling did not, however, get at the real problem: Foster kids are running away by the hundreds each year because they're in need of help, not punishment.

The case hinges on a sweeping judicial power known as inherent contempt, which is a judge's ultimate authority to control the proceedings in his or her courtroom. Typically, it's used when someone is disruptive in court or refuses to appear as a witness. But juvenile-court judges, particularly Juvenile Court Commissioner Robert Inouye in Yakima County, have in recent years turned to the power as a way to deal with chronic runaways.

For the state Department of Social and Health Services and judges, runaways can be particularly frustrating. Often, these kids face dangers on the streets, like gangs and drugs. In the case decided Thursday, both girls had run away from foster homes and been brought back to court a half-dozen times. Each time, Inouye ordered them to stay put. Each time, the girls promised to obey. And each time, they broke their promises.

Initially, Inouye used another, more limited, power to get the girls' attention. Relying on statutes that allow up to seven days behind bars for failing to follow court orders, he sent them to jail, telling them they could get out earlier if they wrote an essay on their predicament.

But even after repeated short stints in jail, each girl kept running. Sometimes, they ran within days of promising not to do so. While on the run, one hung out with a gang and was shot at.

"We are risking catastrophe" if she doesn't stop misbehaving, Inouye said at one girl's hearing.

To Inouye, jail was safer than the streets. Finally, he used his inherent-contempt powers to send each girl to juvenile detention for 30 to 60 days.

Under Thursday's ruling, the use of inherent-contempt authority was affirmed. But the Supreme Court also said that Inouye didn't follow the proper steps, and the girls' punishment was overturned.

The court said judges must first show that they've exhausted all other options to force a youth to comply with court orders. That means referring possible criminal-contempt charges to a prosecutor, who would then decide whether to charge the youth, according to the lead opinion.

The ruling doesn't spell out exactly how all this would work.

Justice Gerry Alexander wrote the four-judge plurality opinion, while Justice Susan Owens wrote the dissent. Two other justices concurred with the plurality. In their separate concurring opinion, Justices Barbara Madsen and Bobbe Bridge argued that judges should turn first not to contempt statutes but look at something else entirely: whether mental-health services or drug treatment has been provided. In addition, they point out that jailing kids for running away doesn't make them behave any better; instead, it sometimes makes their behavior worse.

The concurrence describes how one girl had made several requests for counseling but was ignored. In the meantime, she kept running away and kept landing in jail. While in jail she heard voices, kept rocking back and forth in her cell and used a razor or playing cards to cut herself.

If she had received mental-health treatment, said Beth Colgan, an attorney who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the girls, she "might not have been running away in the first place."

Maureen O'Hagan: 206-464-2562 or mohagan@seattletimes.com