## Facts

- A 15-year-old juvenile, D.F., pleaded guilty to 17 acts of larceny and was adjudicated delinquent.
- At disposition, the juvenile court found (based on unchallenged expert testimony) that D.F. had a serious psychiatric disorder requiring treatment in a structured psychiatric facility.
- The juvenile court placed D.F. in the care of the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) under N.J.S.A. 2A:4-61(e).
- The same order directed DYFS to place D.F. immediately in the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, a private out-of-state psychiatric facility, and to bear the primary financial responsibility for the placement.
- The placement cost about $110 per day, and substantial charges had already accrued by the time of appeal.
- DYFS appealed, challenging the juvenile court’s authority to designate the specific facility and to impose primary fiscal responsibility on DYFS.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile court placing a delinquent juvenile in DYFS custody under N.J.S.A. 2A:4-61(e) may direct DYFS to place the juvenile in a specifically named private psychiatric hospital.
2. Whether the juvenile court may require DYFS to assume primary financial responsibility for the costs of a court-selected private psychiatric placement absent statutory authorization.
3. Whether parens patriae responsibilities or a juvenile’s asserted right to treatment permit the court to override statutory limits and agency discretion over placement and expenditures.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order directing DYFS to place D.F. in the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital and to bear primary financial responsibility for that placement.
- The court held that, although the juvenile court could place D.F. in DYFS custody, it lacked authority to select the specific private institution and compel DYFS to fund it as ordered.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with DYFS’s discretion to determine placement within statutory and fiscal constraints.

## Legal Principles

- A juvenile court’s dispositional authority is limited to the alternatives authorized by statute; placement “under the care” of DYFS does not include power to dictate the precise institution selected by the agency.
- Once custody is vested in DYFS, decisions about specific programs, facilities, and resource allocation are administrative functions assigned to the executive branch under the statutory scheme.
- Courts may not compel an executive agency to incur substantial, specific expenditures for a particular private placement absent legislative authorization, because funding and appropriations choices rest with the Legislature and the agency.
- Parens patriae and a general right to treatment support the provision of adequate care, but do not create a judicial power to require a particular institution or preferred level of care at state expense contrary to statutory limits.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division concluded that the juvenile court could commit D.F. to DYFS custody but could not order DYFS to place him in a designated private psychiatric hospital or impose primary financial responsibility for that placement without statutory authority, and it remanded for a lawful disposition consistent with agency discretion and legislative control over funding.


In re D.F., 145 N.J. Super. 381, 367 A.2d 1198 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)