AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Ariel H. (Child) was on probation and made the decision to stay with her grandparents and mother, knowing it violated her probation terms. The district court found her in willful violation of her probation and revoked it. Child also contended that her commitment to the Youth, Diagnostic & Development Center (YDDC) instead of the San Juan Detention Center (SJDC), based on her gender, violated her right to equal protection.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of her probation and that her commitment to YDDC instead of SJDC violated her right to equal protection due to gender discrimination.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the appeal was moot because Child had already served her commitment and argued that the district court did not have the authority to address Child’s equal protection claim, suggesting such claims should be directed to the Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of Child's probation.
• Whether committing Child to YDDC instead of SJDC violated her right to equal protection.

Disposition

• Affirmed the district court’s revocation of Child’s probation.
• Reversed the district court’s ruling on Child’s equal protection motion and remanded for further consideration.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found substantial evidence supporting the revocation of Child's probation, noting her acknowledgment of the violation and decision to stay with her family despite knowing it breached her probation terms. The Court distinguished this case from precedent by emphasizing Child's willful decision to violate probation terms, contrasting with cases where external decisions led to violations.
  Regarding the equal protection claim, the Court initially proposed to reverse and remand for further consideration, recognizing a prima facie case of gender discrimination as Child was committed to YDDC, a facility that, unlike SJDC, does not accept females. The Court rejected the State's mootness argument, applying exceptions for issues of substantial public interest or those capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court also dismissed the State's argument that the district court lacked authority to address the equal protection claim, clarifying that the court's judgment explicitly remanded Child to YDDC's custody and that no authority was cited to suggest such claims must be pursued in separate civil proceedings. The remand aims to allow the State to respond to the equal protection claim and for the district court to conduct further proceedings.