DA, police chief decry move of juvenile cases away from Brookline District Court

Listen to this article

Norfolk County’s district attorney and the local police chief may not be happy about it, but court leaders are going ahead with plans to take juvenile cases out of Brookline District Court.

As of Sept. 7, jurisdiction over all juvenile matters will have been transferred from Brookline District Court to the Norfolk County Juvenile Court in Dedham.

Brookline has been the outlier, with the Juvenile Court providing services for all other municipalities in the state since 1998, Juvenile Court Chief Justice Amy Nechtem notes in an emailed statement.

But that special status was working well in Brookline, the town’s acting police chief, Mark P. Morgan, writes in an Aug. 25 letter, responding to one he and other stakeholders had just received from District Court Chief Justice Paul C. Dawley, pursuant to his authority as acting first justice of the Brookline District Court. 

Morgan recounts a recent conversation with Dawley, in which Morgan says he “emphasized that the physical location of the Brookline District Court was a crucial factor in being able to successfully resolve cases and rehabilitate youthful offenders.”

“The courthouse is centralized to many social service enterprises of the Town of Brookline that have a role in dealing positively with youthful offenders to assist and guide them towards the positive outcomes we are all working towards,” he writes.

Morgan highlights guidance counselors, social workers, substance abuse counselors and other staff of the Brookline Public Schools, particularly the high school, as well as other community agencies, all located within a “short radius” of the District Court.

Conversely, getting to the Juvenile Court in Dedham will be “impractical and expensive” for defendants and victims alike, many of whom rely on public transportation, DA Michael W. Morrissey writes in an Aug. 26 letter to Nechtem. He notes the lack of direct bus service to the Dedham Corporate Center, leaving an “hours” long trip using a combination of bus, subway and commuter rail and costing more than $20 as the only choice. 

“The Trial Court, through its text messaging initiative and other steps, is doing important work to decrease defaults by lowering barriers to defendants keeping their court dates,” Morrissey notes. “I would posit that this move would create a significant barrier to most if not all of the juvenile defendants involved.”

But, calling access to justice a “priority,” Nechtem says that virtual appearances, virtual hearings and e-filing would help lessen the impact of the change. She also pledges to “work collaboratively with our partners in the Brookline community.”

Morrissey notes that the number of juvenile cases is “very small” — a combined total of 16 delinquency, care and protection, and child requiring assistance filings in Brookline in Fiscal Year 2020, according to Trial Court data.

Morrissey suggests that devoting “perhaps as little as one morning a month” to offering a special juvenile session in the Brookline District Court could eliminate access-to-justice concerns.

“If that session were on a fixed day, as occurs with our various specialty courts, it would obviate most issues with defense attorney availability by allowing permanent notice of when cases will be heard,” he writes.

Morrissey also cites the “precipitous drop in caseload” for the Juvenile Court since criminal justice reform took effect. In FY 2018, there were 32,785 total Juvenile Court filings across the state and 1,826 in Norfolk County. By the following fiscal year, those numbers had dropped to 27,116 and 1,425, decreases of 17.3 percent and 22 percent, respectively.

FY 2020 saw yet another significant dip, to 22,668 total filings and 1,280 in Norfolk County, decreases of 16.4 and 10.2 percent.

That must have created enough flexibility to free up personnel to staff a special juvenile session in Brookline, Morrissey theorizes.

“As judges move from courthouse to courthouse on a daily basis, one or two sessions a month in Brookline seems a modest price to maintain this valuable community asset,” Morrissey writes.

But Nechtem says she considers the Juvenile Court a specialty court with resources that include experienced Juvenile Court judges, clerks and probation staff; court clinics; and the Family Resource Center at its disposal.

“The transfer of jurisdiction over all juvenile matters from Brookline District Court to the Norfolk County Juvenile Court will ensure that the children and families of Brookline will benefit from the Juvenile Court’s experience and specialized expertise,” she says.

Morrissey says he had been “unaware” the transfer was afoot until receiving a copy of Dawley’s Aug. 23 letter.

“There appears to have been little or no dialog with stakeholders, including the District Attorney’s Office, residents, or those who practice in the Brookline District Court, that such a plan was going to be implemented,” he writes.

Not so, says Dawley.

He points to a “listening day” earlier this summer convened to discuss the selection of a new first justice for Brookline, at which he says the issue of the transfer of jurisdiction to the Juvenile Court was discussed with members of the community, including supervisors of the District Attorney’s Office, the police chief and police prosecutor, as well as the town administrator and some members of the bar. 

Nechtem adds that the Norfolk County Juvenile Court would be arranging meetings and otherwise reaching out to connect with Brookline residents, as well as the leaders of the schools and police department, local and state elected officials, and public and private agencies serving the District Court and wider community.

Like Nechtem, Dawley believes the transfer of the cases is for the best, pointing to the expertise of Juvenile Court judges and clerks.

“The Juvenile Court, with extensive resources, is best situated to handle these cases,” he says.