## Facts

- B.B., a minor, received multiple juvenile court referrals beginning in 1990, including theft- and assault-related misconduct.
- After delinquency adjudications, the juvenile court placed B.B. in his mother’s custody under formal probation supervised by the Department of Juvenile Court Services (JCS), subject to a probation contract that included services such as family counseling.
- B.B. continued to receive referrals and was again adjudicated delinquent; the juvenile court continued supervision in the home and continued the probation contract.
- In October 1992, B.B. was adjudicated delinquent for possession of a counterfeit controlled substance with intent to deliver, and the court continued JCS supervision and the probation contract.
- At a dispositional hearing in February 1993, the juvenile court found B.B. had violated the probation contract multiple times and that the family had not followed through with required counseling.
- JCS recommended placement in a group-home setting, but the parties stipulated such a placement was unavailable because it would exceed the regional group-care limits established under Iowa Code § 232.143 (1993).
- With that option unavailable, the juvenile court concluded the least restrictive placement actually available was the Iowa State Training School for Boys and ordered B.B. placed there.
- B.B. was later returned to his mother’s custody under a behavioral contract, but the juvenile court found he violated multiple terms of that contract.
- The juvenile court recommitted B.B. to the state training school, while indicating he should be moved to a highly structured group-home program when an opening became available.
- B.B. appealed the dispositional orders, challenging both the placement decision and the constitutionality of the statutory group-care caps that made the recommended group-home option unavailable.

## Issues

1. Whether the record supported the juvenile court’s initial dispositional order placing B.B. at the state training school, or whether the order was an abuse of discretion under the “least restrictive” disposition requirement.
2. Whether ordering placement at the state training school went beyond the issues presented at disposition and resulted in unfair surprise to B.B.
3. Whether the limits on publicly funded group-care placements under Iowa Code § 232.143 (1993), as applied through the regional plan, violated B.B.’s due process or equal protection rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the juvenile court’s dispositional orders.
- The court held the record supported the juvenile court’s determination that, given B.B.’s repeated violations and the unavailability of the recommended group-home option, placement at the state training school was the least restrictive available alternative and was not an abuse of discretion.
- The court rejected B.B.’s unfair-surprise argument, concluding that disposition necessarily involves selection among legally authorized placements and the juvenile court was not required to follow JCS’s recommendation.
- The court upheld Iowa Code § 232.143 (1993) against due process and equal protection challenges, viewing the statutory limits and regional planning as permissible resource-allocation measures that did not deprive B.B. of constitutional protections.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of juvenile court proceedings is de novo; the reviewing court considers both law and fact. Iowa Code § 232.133(1) (1993).
- In delinquency disposition, the juvenile court may select any placement authorized by statute that is supported by the record; it is not bound by the recommendation of JCS or another service agency.
- The “least restrictive” requirement operates in light of what placements are actually available and lawful to use; when a preferred community-based option is unavailable, the court may order a more restrictive placement that is available and appropriate.
- Statutory limits that cap or allocate publicly funded placement resources are generally assessed under rational-basis review when no suspect class or fundamental right is involved.
- Juvenile delinquents are not a suspect class, and there is no fundamental right to a particular type of placement; a legislative choice to limit certain placements based on budgeting and planning concerns does not violate equal protection if it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
- A statute that limits available placements does not violate due process merely because it affects the menu of options; due process is satisfied where the juvenile receives notice, a hearing, and a judicial determination based on the record within the statutory framework.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed B.B.’s placement and recommitment to the Iowa State Training School for Boys, holding that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in selecting the least restrictive placement that was actually available and that Iowa Code § 232.143’s group-care limits, implemented through regional planning, did not violate due process or equal protection.


In the Interest of B.B., A Minor Child, 516 N.W.2d 874 (1994)