## Facts

- The District of Columbia filed a juvenile petition alleging that B. J. R., a minor, was a “child in need of supervision” (CINS) under D.C. Code § 16-2301(8)(A)(iii) and (8)(B).
- The petition alleged B. J. R. was “habitually disobedient of the reasonable and lawful commands” of her parent, “ungovernable,” and “in need of care or rehabilitation.”
- The petition specified repeated incidents of running away from home: April and October 1969; June and August 1972; and February 26, 1973.
- The last three alleged absences occurred within nine months of the March 6, 1973 filing of the petition.
- The Family Division dismissed the petition on the ground that the statutory CINS definition was unconstitutionally vague.
- The District appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether D.C. Code § 16-2301(8)(A)(iii) and (8)(B), defining a CINS in terms of being “habitually disobedient” of “reasonable and lawful” parental commands, “ungovernable,” and “in need of care or rehabilitation,” is unconstitutionally vague under due process.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the CINS definition was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the conduct alleged in the petition.
- The court concluded the terms “habitually disobedient” and “ungovernable,” when combined with the requirements that commands be “reasonable and lawful” and that the child be “in need of care or rehabilitation,” provided sufficient notice and enforcement standards.
- The court rejected the facial invalidation urged by vagueness and First Amendment concerns in this case because the alleged conduct (repeated absconding) did not involve protected expressive activity.

## Legal Principles

- Vagueness doctrine requires (1) fair notice to persons of ordinary intelligence and (2) reasonably clear standards to limit arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- Vagueness review is commonly conducted as applied to the conduct at issue, particularly where the challenged law can be evaluated in a concrete factual setting.
- A statute that includes limiting elements (e.g., “reasonable and lawful” commands and a required finding of “need of care or rehabilitation”) may provide adequate guidance to officials and courts.
- Heightened specificity concerns associated with laws reaching First Amendment-protected expression do not justify invalidation where the application at issue involves non-expressive conduct and the statute contains narrowing conditions.

## Conclusion

The court held that the District’s CINS statute, requiring habitual disobedience of reasonable and lawful parental commands, ungovernability, and a need for care or rehabilitation, gave adequate notice and enforcement guidance as applied to repeated runaway behavior; it therefore reversed the dismissal of the petition and remanded for further proceedings.


District of Columbia v. B. J. R., 332 A.2d 58 (D.C. 1975)