Legal Opinion

In re the Interest of J.L.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 28, 2007No. 34873-0-IIPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*440¶1

Quinn-Brintnall, J.

Effectively addressing the problem of at-risk youth and school attendance is a major and complex dilemma facing schools and the juvenile courts. In an attempt to protect and guide children, our legislature mandates school attendance for children age 8 through 17. RCW 28A.225.010(1). We do not question the rehabilitative motives underlying statutes purporting to authorize juvenile court orders to detain truant juveniles. Nevertheless, due process prohibits incarceration without due process of law. Incarcerating truants is a punishment that may not be constitutionally…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hamdi v. RumsfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. International Union, United Mine Workers v. BagwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. FeiockSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Penfield Co. v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1947

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In re the Interest of SilvaWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. In Re SilvaWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. JordanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  4. K.L.N. v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. In re the Dependency of M.H.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API