Changes to Maryland’s Juvenile Justice Laws to Take Effect

BALTIMORE – Come Friday, Marylanders between the ages of 10 and 12 can face consequences in court for some firearms offenses and aggravated animal cruelty.

At the same time, if children on electronic monitoring violate the terms of their detention, the Department of Juvenile Services will be required to alert their lawyer and the local prosecutor’s office.

And children younger than 13 will automatically be subject to Children in Need of Supervision petitions if accused of car theft. Such petitions refer children to juvenile courts for guidance, treatment or rehabilitation based on their behavior.

The changes to juvenile justice laws, the bulk of which take effect at the start of November, were part of a sweeping, controversial legislative package that dominated the 2024 General Assembly session in Annapolis. Many of the changes were sought by law enforcement members across Maryland seeking greater accountability for young people in trouble, but opposed by juvenile justice reform and civil rights advocates.

The final legislation, House Bill 814, was a blend of measures from the House and Senate versions that received final approval in April. Gov. Wes Moore signed it into law in May.

Advocates for the legislation, including Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates, have said the changes will help address “glaring deficiencies” in the juvenile system. On Thursday, he cast the changes as steps toward accountability, both for the Department of Juvenile Services and the children themselves.

“We have to hold the young people accountable, so we can direct them into the services more quickly,” he said. “If we wait longer periods of time to give them the services, young people don’t always equate their actions to what now has them receiving these services.”

Critics, though, question whether true accountability or change can come from punitive systems that can exacerbate trauma.

The Rev. Marlon Tilghman, a member of the Maryland Youth Justice Coalition and pastor at Ames United Methodist Church in Bel Air, said the way to get “redemption” for children is by funding and resourcing community-based organizations that can support them and their families.

“I don’t see how [the law changes] are going to accomplish what they hoped it would do. Unfortunately, it looks more punitive,” said Tilghman, calling some of the changes “reactionary” rather than “contemplative.”

Heather Warnken, from the University of Baltimore Law School’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform, said the final version of the legislation felt like “an undoing” of “deliberative, evidence-backed work” by a bipartisan group that led to juvenile justice reforms two years ago.

Going forward, Warnken said it will be important to monitor the data to see whether more kids are ending up in detention, for what reasons and at what ages, and whether there is a continuation of “extreme racial disparities” in outcomes.

“We definitely want to stop this cycle of reactionary policy-making that’s not rooted in the data, that’s driven by media narratives that are fear-based,” Warnken said. “We don’t want to be quick to making changes that are not aligned with evidence of what we know works for kids and their families, and for producing community safety as a whole.”

Bates and other supporters pushed the need for change as car thefts spiked in Maryland and nationwide, at least partly the product of social media amplification of methods to steal Kia and Hyundai vehicles. That spike coincided with some progress, particularly in Baltimore City, around violent crime, though some residents still voice concerns about safety.

Last year, the city recorded fewer than 300 killings for the first time since 2014, and reductions in shootings and killings have continued into 2024.

Arrests of young people make up a small fraction of overall criminal arrests. In Baltimore so far in 2024, 5% of arrests have been of people under age 18, according to a Sentencing Project analysis published earlier this month. The youth population makes up about 8% of city residents.

Still, since the legislation’s passage this spring, a spotlight on state policies around juvenile justice has persisted, including around electronic monitoring of young people and communication with school officials about allegations against students.

Here’s what to know about the legislative changes:

Charges for youth under age 13

Perhaps the most controversial of the legislative package’s language: Children between the ages of 10 and 12 will be eligible for criminal charges for a greater number of offenses. (The juvenile system uses the language “delinquent act” rather than criminal charge when describing allegations against a child.)

This move rolls back changes made two years ago in the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. Under that law, children had to be at least 13 years old to face charges for most offenses, and at least 10 years old for only the most serious violent crimes.

The amended law now allows children 10 and older to be accused of violent crimes, some crimes involving handguns or firearms, aggravated cruelty to animals and third-degree sex offenses.

On Thursday, Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger praised the change as a way to “capture more offenders and try and get them the help they need.”

“If we can get a car thief into juvenile court when they’re 12, then maybe I won’t have to prosecute them for a violent crime when they’re 17,” Shellenberger said.

Supporters of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act argued unsuccessfully this past legislative session that insufficient time had passed to gauge the effect of those reforms two years ago. Others have argued the tweaks will not solve community safety concerns.

Children accused of car theft

The juvenile justice legislation, now law, also mandates that intake officers who receive a complaint alleging a child stole a vehicle must file a Children in Need of Supervision petition, known as a CINS petition.

Those petitions flag for a juvenile court that a child is in need of guidance, treatment or rehabilitation, according to juvenile services materials. That could include children who should be in school but who don’t regularly attend, children who cannot be “controlled” by parents or guardians, children who act dangerously toward themselves or others, or children who have committed offenses applicable only to children, like drinking alcohol or violating curfew.

When CINS petitions are filed with the juvenile court, it results in a hearing on the facts alleged in the petition. That hearing could lead to a court decision for the child to be formally supervised by DJS or for the child to receive what’s known as an “informal adjustment,” which is when DJS informally supervises them for a period of time.

A new commission on best practices

A Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices was the sole provision of the juvenile bill this session that was not the subject of opposition from youth advocates.

The commission is tasked with reporting on juvenile services, facilities and programs in Maryland, as well as researching promising new programs or practices and identifying opportunities for greater collaboration between state agencies and local organizations.

DJS said in a news release that the commission’s first meeting would be in October.

Other changes

Additional changes in the law include:

•Allowing juvenile court judges to extend children’s probationary periods for longer spans of time.

•Requiring school boards to create policies for how children on the juvenile sex offender registry ought to complete their education, without returning to classes on school property.

•Codifying the Thrive Academy program targeted toward helping the young people most at risk of falling victim to or perpetrating gun violence.

•Requiring that the case for any child charged with a crime while under DJS supervision be automatically forwarded to the local state’s attorney.

--------