## Facts

- C.S., nearly 14 years old, appeared in Ohio juvenile court on delinquency charges for two counts of grand theft and on an allegation that he violated probation from an earlier assault case.
- Before the hearing, C.S. and his mother received written notice of his right to counsel, including appointed counsel if indigent, and both signed a written waiver of counsel.
- At a magistrate hearing, the court conducted an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right to counsel; C.S. again waived counsel and admitted the allegations after the magistrate explained the charges.
- During the hearing, C.S.’s mother stated she had not read the police report and had not spoken with C.S. since his arrest; the magistrate also noted that additional felony charges were likely.
- The magistrate adjudicated C.S. delinquent and ordered a 12-month commitment to a juvenile detention facility; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting claims that C.S.’s waiver of counsel and admissions violated constitutional, statutory, and due process requirements.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to address the scope and waiver of a juvenile’s right to counsel in delinquency proceedings and the standard for accepting admissions.

## Issues

1. Under R.C. 2151.352, what does “represent” mean regarding a parent, guardian, or custodian in delinquency proceedings, and how does that affect a juvenile’s ability to waive counsel?
2. What standard governs whether a juvenile’s waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
3. When accepting a juvenile’s admission under Juv.R. 29(D), is substantial compliance sufficient, and how does any noncompliance relate to prejudice and waiver-of-counsel validity?
4. Applying these standards, were C.S.’s waiver of counsel and admissions valid?

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court construed “represent” in R.C. 2151.352 to mean “counsel or advise” the juvenile in the delinquency proceeding.
- The Court held that a juvenile may waive counsel only if the juvenile is counseled and advised by a parent/guardian/custodian or has consulted with an attorney; if neither occurred, waiver is not permitted.
- The Court adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test for assessing the validity of a juvenile’s waiver of counsel and identified nonexclusive factors courts must consider.
- The Court recognized a juvenile judge’s inherent parens patriae authority to appoint counsel to advise a juvenile regarding waiver when needed.
- The Court held that strict compliance with Juv.R. 29(D) is preferred, but substantial compliance renders an admission voluntary absent prejudice or a totality-based showing that waiver/admission was not valid.
- The Court applied these doctrines to C.S.’s record, emphasizing that validity turns on whether he was adequately counseled/advised and whether the totality supports a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver and admission.

## Legal Principles

- In Ohio delinquency proceedings, “represent” in R.C. 2151.352 means to counsel or advise the juvenile, not to serve as legal counsel.
- A juvenile cannot waive the right to counsel unless the juvenile is counseled/advised by a parent, guardian, or custodian or has consulted with an attorney; absent both, the waiver is invalid as a matter of law.
- Validity of a juvenile’s waiver of counsel is determined under a totality-of-the-circumstances test considering factors including age, intelligence, education, experience with courts, parental presence, the court’s rights advisements, the juvenile’s conduct and emotional stability, and proceeding complexity.
- A juvenile judge has inherent authority, acting as parens patriae, to appoint counsel to assist in evaluating whether the juvenile should waive rights, particularly where parental counseling may be inadequate.
- For Juv.R. 29(D), strict compliance is preferred; substantial compliance is sufficient if the juvenile subjectively understood the rights and consequences and cannot show prejudice or an invalid waiver under the totality of circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court established that juvenile waiver of counsel in delinquency cases requires meaningful counseling/advice by a parent/guardian/custodian or consultation with an attorney and must be validated under a totality-of-the-circumstances test; admissions are generally upheld on substantial Juv.R. 29(D) compliance absent prejudice or a record showing the waiver/admission was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.


In re C.S., 115 Ohio St. 3d 267, 874 N.E.2d 1177 (Ohio 2007)