## Facts

- Jeffrey M. was 15 years old and had no prior record of delinquency.
- On a cold night, Jeffrey and several friends were stranded far from home and asked the police for help getting home.
- The police advised the youths to hitchhike; when hitchhiking failed, they again asked for assistance.
- The police drove the group to a different highway with more traffic and a better chance of finding a ride, but they still could not get home.
- As a last resort, one of the boys obtained a car that did not belong to him and drove Jeffrey and the others home.
- A police officer filed a juvenile delinquency petition in Family Court alleging that Jeffrey and the others were delinquent based on possession and control of the car of another.
- At the delinquency proceeding, Family Court adjourned the matter in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) for 12 months, conditioned on school attendance, participation in a community program, and use of cars only in the presence of an adult.
- The proceeding occurred without any family member present; Jeffrey was not told of a right to have a family member present, and the record did not show what efforts (if any) were made to obtain parental assistance.
- Jeffrey appealed, arguing that a 12-month ACD exceeded the statutory maximum and that the proceeding was defective because the court did not fully explain the meaning and consequences of a juvenile delinquency adjudication.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Court had statutory authority in a juvenile delinquency proceeding to order an ACD for 12 months rather than the maximum period allowed by the Family Court Act.
2. Whether the Family Court’s failure to ensure Jeffrey understood the nature and consequences of a juvenile delinquency adjudication, along with the absence of parental or family participation and the lack of a record of efforts to secure it, required reversal or vacatur of the disposition.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held that the 12-month ACD was unauthorized because the governing statute limited an ACD in this setting to six months.
- The court concluded that the record did not show that Jeffrey was adequately advised about the meaning and consequences of a juvenile delinquency adjudication, and the proceeding took place without family support or a documented effort to secure it.
- The appellate court therefore set aside the disposition as entered and required further proceedings consistent with its statutory and procedural rulings, including that any ACD be limited to the statutory maximum.

## Legal Principles

- Family Court’s authority to order an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in a juvenile delinquency matter is purely statutory; the court may not impose an ACD longer than the period the statute permits.
- A juvenile delinquency determination and any resulting disposition require procedures that ensure the youth understands what is occurring and what consequences may follow.
- In juvenile delinquency matters, the court should advise the child of the opportunity to have a parent or family member present, and the record should reflect reasonable efforts to obtain such assistance when it is not present.
- When the record shows neither adequate explanation of the proceeding’s consequences nor meaningful parental participation (or efforts to obtain it), the resulting adjudication or disposition cannot stand as entered.

## Conclusion

In *In re Jeffrey M.*, the Appellate Division ruled that Family Court exceeded its statutory power by imposing a 12‑month ACD in a juvenile delinquency case and found the proceeding deficient because the record did not show that Jeffrey understood the consequences of a delinquency adjudication or that parental or family assistance was secured (or even meaningfully sought), requiring the disposition to be set aside and the matter returned for action consistent with the statute and required safeguards.


In re Jeffrey M., 62 App. Div. 2d 858, 406 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1978)