The purpose of the Delinquency Act is:

A. consistent with the protection of the public interest, to remove from children committing delinquent acts the adult consequences of criminal behavior, but to still hold children committing delinquent acts accountable for their actions to the extent of the child's age, education, mental and physical condition, background and all other relevant factors, and to provide a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation, including rehabilitative restitution by the child to the victims of the child's delinquent act to the extent that the child is reasonably able to do so;

B. to provide effective deterrents to acts of juvenile delinquency, including an emphasis on community-based alternatives;

C. to strengthen families and to successfully reintegrate children into homes and communities;

D. to foster and encourage collaboration between government agencies and communities with regard to juvenile justice policies and procedures;

E. to develop juvenile justice policies and procedures that are supported by data;

F. to develop objective risk assessment instruments to be used for admission to juvenile detention centers;

G. to encourage efficient processing of cases;

H. to develop community-based alternatives to detention;

I. to eliminate or reduce disparities based upon race or gender;

J. to improve conditions of confinement in juvenile detention centers; and

K. to achieve reductions in the number of warrants issued, the number of probation violations and the number of youth awaiting placements.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-2-2, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 31; 2003, ch. 225, § 2; 2007, ch. 19, § 2.

The 2007 amendment, effective June 15, 2007, added Subsections D through K.

The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, added Subsection C.

Rules governing applicable proceedings. — Reading the Children's Code and the Children's Court Rules together, the overall scheme contemplates that, while the Rules of Criminal Procedure govern the adjudicatory proceedings in youthful offender cases, the Children's Court Rules govern all dispositional proceedings for all youthful offenders. State v. Stephen F., 2005-NMCA-048, 137 N.M. 409, 112 P.3d 270, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 2006 NMSC-030, 140 N.M. 24, 139 P.3d 184.

Application of section eliminated. — The express language "notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary" in the first sentence of Section 32A-2-14F NMSA 1978 is construed to eliminate the application of this section to show legislative intent to balance accountability with protection of children. State v. Jade G., 2005-NMCA-019, 137 N.M. 128, 108 P.3d 534, aff'd, 2007-NMSC-010, 141 N.M. 284, 154 P.3d 659.

Meeting section goals. — Where child's interim detention served the specific purposes of holding child accountable, providing supervision, ensuring for his health and physical safety, providing a deterrent and acting in a manner consistent with the public interest, it was an attempt to meet the goals set forth in this section as part of an overall disposition effort. State v. Wacey C., 2004-NMCA-029, 135 N.M. 186, 86 P.3d 611.

Presentence credit. — A child who is found not guilty of being a serious youthful offender, but adjudicated as a delinquent offender on a lesser-included offense, is not entitled to presentence confinement credit against the child's commitment to the children, youth and families department. State v. Nanco, 2012-NMCA-109, 288 P.3d 527, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-010.

Where the child, who was fifteen years old, was charged with committing first degree murder and two counts of tampering with evidence, and the jury determined that the child had committed the delinquent acts of voluntary manslaughter and one count with tampering with evidence, the child was not entitled to presentence confinement credit against the child's commitment to the custody of the children, youth and families department for the twenty-five months the child was detained in a juvenile detention facility before the district court adjudicated the child a delinquent offender. State v. Nanco, 2012-NMCA-109, 288 P.3d 527, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-010.

Law enforcement does not have a duty to consider a child's mental disability before arresting the child, if the arresting officer has established probable cause to arrest. — Where a law enforcement officer has established probable cause to arrest a child for committing a delinquent act, the Delinquency Act does not impose an additional duty on the law enforcement officer to investigate whether a disability prevents the child from forming the requisite intent to commit the delinquent act. J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo Cnty., 61 F.Supp.3d 1085 (D.N.M. 2014).

Where student resource officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, a sixth grade student who had been qualified as emotionally disturbed, based on the officer's own observation of plaintiff kicking her teacher, corroborated by interviews with the teacher and another student who had been attacked by plaintiff, the officer did not violate the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights when he arrested plaintiff, and the New Mexico Delinquency Act did not impose a duty on the officer to investigate whether plaintiff's disability prevented her from forming the requisite intent to commit battery on a school employee; once probable cause to arrest is established, an officer is not required to continue to investigate for exculpatory evidence before arresting a suspect. J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo Cnty., 61 F.Supp.3d 1085 (D.N.M. 2014).