In the Matter of J.M.
South Dakota Supreme Court
546 N.W.2d 383 (1996)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In May 1990, 10-year-old J.M. (defendant) was adjudicated delinquent after he cashed a forged check. J.M. successfully completed and was discharged from probation for the offense but was again adjudicated delinquent in October 1991 for intentional damage to property in the second degree. On November 6, 1991, the juvenile court placed J.M. on an indefinite term of probation that indicated J.M. was to be a law-abiding citizen and not violate any local, state, or federal laws. J.M. was also placed in the custody of his grandparents, with visitation for his parents. Over the next few years, J.M. continued on probation and custody was transferred back and forth between J.M.’s parents and grandparents, with J.M. ultimately remaining in his grandparents’ custody. In December 1994, the juvenile court found that J.M. had satisfactorily completed the terms of his probation, discharged J.M. from probation, and terminated the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. At a subsequent hearing in June 1995, J.M. testified that he wished to remain in the custody of his grandparents because he was happy with them, doing well in school, and fearful that he would revert to delinquency if he returned to his parents’ home. A home study ordered by the court did not find that J.M.’s parents were unfit. After the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction, J.M. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.