IN RE: A.J.C. (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

A.J.C., a minor, appeals from a juvenile court order adjudicating him a delinquent child. Seventh Judicial District Court, White Pine County; Steve L. Dobrescu, Chief Judge.

First, A.J.C. contends NRS 62E.510(1) and NRS 62E.520(1)(a) are in conflict with each other. Specifically, he claims that NRS 62E.510(1) prohibits a child under the age of 12 from being committed to a state facility for the detention of children but that NRS 62E.520(1)(a) allows a child under the age of 12 to be so committed. A.J.C.’s interpretation of the two statutes is not supported by the plain language of the statutes.

NRS 62E.510(1) states that a delinquent child less than 12 years old may not be committed to a state facility for the detention of children. A “[s]tate facility for the detention of children” is specifically defined in NRS 62A.330 as a “state facility for the detention or commitment of children which is administered by the State of Nevada,” including “the Nevada Youth Training Center and the Caliente Youth Center.” In contrast, NRS 62E.520(1)(a) states that a delinquent child may be committed “to the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services [DCFS] for placement in a correctional or institutional facility if: (a) [t]he child is at least 8 years of age but less than 12 years of age, and ․ the child is in need of placement in a correctional or institutional facility.” While a correctional or institutional facility is not defined by statute, it is clear from the plain language that it is different than a state facility for the detention of children as NRS 62E.520(1)(a) does not provide for the juvenile court or DCFS to place a child that is at least 8 years of age but less than 12 years of age in a state facility for the detention of children. Thus, the statutes are not contradictory and A.J.C. is not entitled to relief on this claim.

Second, A.J.C. argues the juvenile court failed to satisfy the requirements of NRS 62E.505 because it did not determine “that appropriate alternatives that could satisfactorily meet the needs of the child do not exist in the community or were previously” unsuccessful and that the child poses a risk to the public based on the child's likelihood to reoffend. A.J.C. argues the juvenile court and juvenile probation could have worked harder to get A.J.C. into a treatment program at a facility called Eagle Quest in Las Vegas; thus, he contends the juvenile court did not consider all appropriate alternatives.

NRS 62E.505 only applies when the juvenile court commits a delinquent child to a state facility for the detention of children. The juvenile court in this case did not commit A.J.C. to a state facility for the detention of children; thus, the statute does not apply. Further, the juvenile court made findings, supported by the record, that the resources in the community were not sufficient to meet the needs of A.J.C. and that A.J.C. posed a risk to the community. The parties agreed at the delinquency hearing that A.J.C. could not be placed back into his home based on the victim living in the home and that A.J.C. had previously failed at supervision. Further, there were no treatment facilities in the community that could treat A.J.C. Thus, juvenile probation was not a viable option, and the juvenile court properly committed A.J.C. to the custody of DCFS for placement in a correctional or institutional facility. Therefore, we conclude A.J.C. fails to demonstrate that the juvenile court erred or that he is entitled to relief on this claim.¹ Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note the parties agree that, after being committed to the custody of DCFS, A.J.C. was placed at Eagle Quest.