{
  "id": 2833447,
  "name": "In the Matter of John DOE IV, a child, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Doe",
  "decision_date": "1975-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 1546",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "174",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 172"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "531 P.2d 220"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4948,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.666970501906556e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29207050295210263
    },
    "sha256": "9d8f4fa61a3942d7046b641bf67675e853867818b001a179f9bcd16835e981e6",
    "simhash": "1:878934d20157b04b",
    "word_count": 864
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of John DOE IV, a child, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nJohn Doe IV appeals from an order entered by the Children\u2019s Court.\nIn March, 1973, a petition was filed in Children\u2019s Court, Lincoln County, in accordance with \u00a7 13-14-17, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, 1973 Supp.), which charged John with being a delinquent child because of acts allegedly in violation of \u00a7 46-10-12, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 7). Section 13-14-3(N) and (0). John was then 17 years of age, and a \u201cchild\u201d. Section 13-14-3(A). A hearing was held and a dispositional order entered which adjudged John a child in need of supervision, and ordered that he be placed on probation until the beginning of the 1973-74 school year.\nOn April 13, 1973, because of a new series of allegedly unlawful acts, a second petition alleging that John was a delinquent child was filed. The court entered an order on April 19, judging that John was a child in need of supervision, revoking his probation, and ordering that he be kept in \u201cChildren\u2019s Detention\u201d in the Lincoln County Jail, until final disposition of his case.\nOn April 17, 1973, a \u201cconsent decree\u201d was entered into pursuant to \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 33 in which John was placed under supervision. This \u201cconsent decree\u201d was revoked on April 19, 1973.\nOn May 1, 1973, a new petition was filed, which alleged that appellant was a delinquent child, and a child in need of supervision, because he did not report to Children\u2019s Detention, in contempt of the court order, or to school, beginning with the date of April 26th. On or about that date, J\u00bfhn left the state. The date of his return to New Mexico does not appear of record.\nOn January 17, 1974, a summons was served on John\u2019s mother. The hearing was set for January 22, 1974. John was then 18 years old and an adult. Section 13 \u2014 14\u2014 3(B). On January 29, following the hearing, the Children\u2019s Court entered the order from which this appeal was taken. This order was a judgment which purged John of contempt of court and placed him on probation pending a hearing on the petition filed April 13, 1973.\nA probation agreement was signed by John and his mother and filed on February 19, 1974. The term of probation ran from January 22, 1974 to the end of the 1973-74 school year. That term has expired. This same term of probation was fixed in the final order entered on January 29, 1974.\nJohn contends that the Children\u2019s Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order of January 29, 1974 because he was an adult, having attained the age of 18 on December 15, 1973.\nHis contention is that \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 35(H) terminates \u201call judgments affecting the child, when the child reaches 18 years of age.\u201d Section 13-14-35(H) reads: \u201cWhen a child reaches eighteen [18] years of age all judgments affecting the child then in force automatically terminate * * * [Emphasis added.] The order entered on January 29, 1974 was not in force when John reached his 18th birthday. Therefore, under \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 35(H), the Children\u2019s Court had jurisdiction.\nSection 13-14-12 (A) retains jurisdiction in the Children\u2019s Court, even though John became an adult, until \u201cdisposition\u201d of the case, or transfer to a court having criminal jurisdiction. Section 13-14 \u2014 12(A), (B). The order of January 29, 1974 was a disposition of the petition of May 1, 1973. The Children\u2019s Court had jurisdiction to enter that order under \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 12(A).\nJohn also contends the Children\u2019s Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the above order because it enforced provisions of that order which disposed of the petition filed in March, 1973. We disagree. The disposition order for the March, 1973 petition required 30 days of public service work. This order terminated under \u00a7 13 \u2014 14\u2014 35(H). The January 29, 1974 order required this public service work as a condition of probation in disposing of the petition of May 1, 1973. Being a disposition under the May 1, 1973 petition, the court had jurisdction to make that disposition under \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 12(A).\nThe only remaining portion of the order of January 29, 1974, from which this appeal is taken, is item 3. It reads:\n3. The Petition now outstanding against the Child shall proceed to trial as soon as Counsel may be heard.\nThe petition outstanding is that of April 13, 1973. It contains five counts. Counts III and V were forgiven in the final order. Counts I, II and IV have not been decided by the Children\u2019s Court and are not before us for review. The Children\u2019s Court has authority to dispose of the counts under \u00a7 13-14-12 (A).\nThe remaining contentions of John are without merit.\nThe order of January 29, 1974 is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chester H. Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, Appellate Defender, Donald Klein, Jr., Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Louis Druxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "531 P.2d 220\nIn the Matter of John DOE IV, a child, Appellant.\nNo. 1546.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 8, 1975.\nChester H. Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, Appellate Defender, Donald Klein, Jr., Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Louis Druxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 198,
  "last_page_order": 200
}