## Facts

- Theodore Bernier, Jr. was adjudicated a juvenile offender and committed to Maine’s Boys Training Center (BTC), a state juvenile institution.
- About two years later, the juvenile court released Bernier from the BTC to his parents’ custody on a conditional “entrustment,” memorialized in a written placement agreement.
- The placement agreement imposed conditions, including that Bernier obey the law, and stated that if he violated a condition the BTC superintendent could require Bernier to return to the BTC’s physical and legal custody for an indefinite period.
- A few months after the conditional release, police questioned Bernier in connection with a theft.
- The police released Bernier without filing criminal charges or initiating a new juvenile petition, but notified the placement/aftercare worker about the incident.
- Acting under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2716, the BTC superintendent directed the police to take Bernier into custody and return him to the BTC.
- Bernier repeatedly requested a hearing concerning his return to the BTC, but he received neither notice of specific violations nor a hearing.
- Bernier filed a petition for habeas corpus (post-conviction review), challenging the constitutionality of the statute and the superintendent’s authority to return him to BTC without a hearing.
- The matter reached the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine on report on an agreed statement of facts.

## Issues

1. Does due process require notice and a hearing before (or promptly after) the BTC superintendent cancels a juvenile’s entrustment to parents and retakes the juvenile into institutional custody under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2716?
2. Does § 2716 deny equal protection by permitting return of an entrusted juvenile to the BTC without a hearing while other forms of conditional liberty (such as adult probation or parole) may involve more procedure?
3. Is § 2716 unconstitutional for vagueness because it grants the superintendent broad discretion, tied to the child’s welfare, to cancel entrustment and resume custody?
4. Can the placement agreement limit the superintendent’s statutory authority to retake custody without a hearing?

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine upheld the constitutionality of 15 M.R.S.A. § 2716 as applied to the superintendent’s cancellation of entrustment.
- The court denied habeas relief and left Bernier in the BTC’s custody.
- The court held that returning a juvenile already under an existing commitment from conditional placement to institutional custody did not require a formal hearing as a matter of due process.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim, concluding that juveniles committed to the BTC and conditionally entrusted to parents are not similarly situated to adults on probation or parole for procedural purposes.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, holding that the statute’s welfare-based standard provided a sufficient guide for the superintendent’s decision.
- The court held that the placement agreement could not restrict the superintendent’s authority granted by statute.

## Legal Principles

- A juvenile’s entrustment to parents under an existing commitment may be treated as a conditional placement within continuing state custody, so a superintendent’s decision to end that placement can be handled administratively.
- In Maine’s juvenile system, the superintendent of a training center may act in a guardian-like role in making custody and placement decisions aimed at the child’s welfare.
- Due process does not necessarily require a trial-type hearing for administrative decisions that adjust the conditions of custody for a juvenile who remains committed to a juvenile institution.
- Equal protection is not violated merely because the state uses different procedures for juveniles in a custodial, rehabilitative setting than for adults in criminal supervision categories.
- A statutory standard focused on the child’s welfare can be sufficiently definite to guide official action in the juvenile context.
- Contract-like placement terms cannot narrow statutory authority that controls the legal custody status of a committed juvenile.

## Conclusion

Bernier v. State held that Maine’s entrustment statute, 15 M.R.S.A. § 2716, permits the superintendent of the Boys Training Center to revoke a juvenile’s conditional placement with parents and return the juvenile to institutional custody without providing notice and a formal hearing, because the juvenile remains under an existing commitment and the statute authorizes welfare-based administrative placement decisions.


Bernier v. State, 265 A.2d 604 (1970)