Between Recommendations and Orders: The Limbo Status of Juvenile Court Referees

Abstract

Juvenile court reliance on referee hearing officers is another practice that requires revision to comport with the juvenile justice legalization trend. The use of referees is widespread, but not universal. Where used, referees may hear an overwhelming percentage of the juvenile court workload. Referee status and, in turn, juvenile court status suffer from statutory curbs on the authority of this official. Parties dis satisfied with referee advisory decisions may request a new hearing before the juvenile court judge; with exceptions, referee authority is limited to entering findings and recommendations which require confirmation by a judge to become a final order. Recent appellate court decisions threaten these procedures. Double jeopardy problems ac company the state's appeal of a referee's dismissal of charges brought against a youth; due process constraints suggest that a defendant is entitled to a final decision by the official who has heard the testimony in the first place. Analysis indicates that, despite cost savings and certain efficiencies resulting from the transfer of case hearing responsibilities from a judge to a referee, a variety of machinations and defi ciencies attend this practice. Referee use is seen as causing an inappropriate aggrandizement of the power of the juvenile court judge. Abolition of the referee position is recommended as the cleanest way out of the present charades and dilemmas.