## Facts

- Darlene C. was a 16-year-old juvenile repeatedly brought before family court as a truant and runaway (a status offender).
- The family court adjudicated her a runaway, ordered placement at a girls’ home, and required counseling; the order warned that noncompliance could result in contempt.
- Two days later, Darlene ran away again.
- The family court issued a rule to show cause, found her in contempt, treated the contempt as elevating her from status offender to delinquent, and committed her to the Department of Youth Services for an indeterminate term not to exceed her 21st birthday.
- On appeal, Darlene challenged the delinquency adjudication and the resulting commitment.
- Although she had already served months in detention and was on probation, the appellate court reviewed the case because the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile who violates a status-offense disposition order by running away may be treated as a delinquent and given a delinquency-only disposition based on criminal contempt.
2. Whether committing a status offender to secure confinement via a contempt finding is consistent with statutory limits barring detention for status offenses.
3. Whether the appeal was moot given the juvenile’s partial service of the disposition.

## Decision

- The court exercised jurisdiction despite apparent mootness because the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The court held that, in the most extreme and egregious circumstances, family court contempt powers may permit secure confinement of a juvenile whose underlying conduct is a status offense.
- The court disapproved the particular disposition imposed (an indeterminate commitment up to age 21) and remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- A status offense is conduct that would not be a crime if committed by an adult.
- Statutes generally bar placing juveniles taken into custody for status offenses in detention facilities.
- A contempt finding for willful violation of a prior court order can, in rare cases, justify secure confinement; it functions as a narrow exception and is treated as a last resort after less restrictive measures have proved inadequate.
- Juvenile confinement disputes may be reviewed even after the juvenile has served all or part of the disposition when the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that status offenders are presumptively protected from secure detention by statute, but allowed a narrow contempt-based path to confinement in extreme cases; because the family court’s indeterminate delinquency-style commitment exceeded permissible bounds on these facts, the case was remanded for resentencing.


In re Darlene C., 278 S.C. 664, 301 S.E.2d 136 (S.C. 1983)