## Facts

- A 15-year-old boy participated with two other juveniles in three afternoon housebreakings and related property destruction.
- He admitted involvement and said the break-ins were motivated by hunger.
- $122 was taken from one residence; other damage included slashed portraits, torn pictures, a mutilated diary, and eggs splattered in and around homes.
- About six weeks after the delinquency adjudication, the court held a dispositional hearing.
- A psychologist reported serious conflict with the boy’s father that emotionally “terrorized” the child and recommended probation in the home with counseling for the family.
- A school principal testified the boy had academic potential; after the adjudication he was suspended due to a fire in his locker, which the boy denied setting, though the principal believed he did.
- The juvenile court rejected the recommendation for home probation and ordered institutional commitment, stating there was an “epidemic of housebreakings” and that the court would not “countenance it,” and expressing a desire to “send a message.”

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering institutional commitment primarily to deter community housebreakings and “send a message,” despite uncontradicted professional evidence recommending home probation with counseling.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the commitment order was improper and an abuse of discretion.
- The court vacated the institutional commitment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile dispositions must be based on the individual child’s welfare and rehabilitation, not retribution or general deterrence.
- A juvenile court has discretion in disposition, but it must exercise that discretion within the purposes of juvenile law and on reasons tied to the child’s circumstances.
- A court may depart from expert recommendations, but disregarding uncontradicted professional evaluations requires articulated, evidence-based reasons related to the child’s best interests.
- Institutional commitment is improper when primarily justified by community conditions (e.g., an “epidemic” of offenses) or by making an example of the child to influence others.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside the juvenile’s institutional commitment because the disposition was driven by generalized deterrence and “message-sending,” not an individualized determination of the child’s rehabilitative needs in light of uncontradicted evidence supporting probation with counseling.


In re Appeal No. 179, 23 Md. App. 496, 327 A.2d 793 (Ct. Spec. App. Md. 1974)