Provides for the removal of restraints on children under 21 years of age upon entry into family court

This measure provides that restraints are prohibited and thus must presumptively be removed upon entry of the juvenile into the courtroom{4} unless the Family Court determines and explains on the record why restraints are "necessary to prevent: (1) physical injury to the child or another person by the child; (2) physically disruptive courtroom behavior by the child, as evidenced by a recent history of behavior that presented a substantial risk of physical harm to the child or another person, where such behavior indicates a substantial likelihood of current physically disruptive courtroom behavior by the child; or (3) flight from the courtroom by the child, as evidenced by a recent history of absconding from the court." The particular restraints permitted must be the "least restrictive available alternative" and, in order to ensure due process, the child must be given an opportunity to be heard regarding a request to impose restraints. The measure further provides that in cases where the exception is invoked, only handcuffs or footcuffs may be used and handcuffs may not be joined to footcuffs.

The measure closely mirrors the presumption, exception factors and right to be heard in the Florida court rule, as well as the Model Statute/Court Rule developed by the Campaign Against Indiscriminate Juvenile Shackling, the statute and court rule in Pennsylvania, and the statutes in New Hampshire, North Carolina and South Carolina.{5} It is similar to the court rules in Massachusetts, Washington, New Mexico and, most recently, Maryland.{6} It is consistent with the orders that resulted from challenges to restraints in California, North Dakota, Oregon and Illinois.{7) It reflects the criticisms articulated in, and recommendations by, myriad commentators{8} and, most recently, in the resolutions by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the American Bar Association noted above. Estimating that over 100,000 children are shackled in court, the National Campaign to End Indiscriminate Shackling of Youth noted that since its campaign began in August, 2014, Indiana, Nebraska, Alaska, Utah, Nevada and the District of Columbia have prohibited indiscriminate use of restraints.{9} Significantly, reports of the implications of shackling limitations in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Linn County, Oregon, two and five years, respectively, after the imposition of the limitations have indicated no adverse effects on courtroom safety and decorum.{10} Nor has implementation presented any significant burdens upon the courts as requests for restraints are rare and the hearings, when held, are brief.{11}

Restrictions upon the use of mechanical restraints upon adult offenders in criminal trials has long been recognized as necessary to a fair trial. The United States Supreme

{1} See National Council of juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resolution Regarding Shackling of Children in Juvenile Court (Adopted July 15. 2015; www.ncjfcj.org,); American Bar Association, Resolution and Report to the House Delegates (Adopted by the House of Delegates, February, 2015); www.americanbar.org).

{2} Campaign to End Indiscriminate Juvenile Shackling, Shackling Reform Statewide Court Rules. Policies, Administrative Orders & Statutes (June. 2015; http:/njde:info/campaign-against-indiscriminate-juvenile-shacklin; Juvenile Justice in a Developmental Framework: A 2015 Status Report (MacArthur Fdtn., 2015) at p. 30.

{3} See In Re Amendment to Fla. Rules of juvenile Procedure, 26 So.2d 552, 556 (FL., 2009).

{4} The measure solely addresses courtroom appearances. A similar presumption currently applies to use of restraints during transportation of juveniles from New York State Office of Children and Family Services facilities pursuant to an injunction issued in the class action case of Matter of John F. v. Carridn, -Misc.3d-, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 27, 2010 (S.Ct., N.Y.Co., 2010).

{5} See Fla. Rules of Juvenile Procedure § 8.100(b) (2009); Campaign Against Indiscriminate Juvenile Shackling, 2014 Model Statute/Court Rule (www.njde.info. checked Dec. 29, 2014): Adoption of the New Rule 139 of the Rules 139 Juvenile Court Procedure, Pa. S.Ct. No. 527, 237 Pa. Code § 139 (Apr. 26, 2011); 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6336.2 (2012); N.H.R.S.A. §126-U:13 (2010); N.C. GEN. Stat. § 7B-2402 (2013); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-19-1435 (2014).

{6} See Amendment to Trial Court of the Commonwealth (of Mass.) Court Officer Policy and Procedures Manual, ch. 4 Courtroom Procedure's, Section VI, Juvenile Court Sessions (2010); N.M. Children's Ct.R. § 10-223A (2013); Wash. Ct. Rule (effective Sept. 1, 2014); Resolution Regarding Shackling of Children in Juvenile Court (Adapted by Md. Judiciary and Chief Judge of Court of Appeals, Sept. 21, 2015).

{7} See Tiffany A. v. Superior Court. 150 Cal. App. 4th 1344 (2007); in Re R.W.S., 728 N.W.2d 326 (ND. 2007); In Re Millican, 906 P.2d 857 (Or. Ct. App., 1995); In Re Staley, 364 N.E.2d 72 1977).

{8} See, e.g., B. Schatz, "A Court Put a Nine-year Old in Shackles for Stealing Chewing Gum-an Outrage that Happens Every Single Day: Research Shows that Shackling is Bad for Kids and Unnecessary for Courtroom Safety. So Why Do Judges Keep Doing It.?," Mother Jones (Feb., 2015; www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/ court-shackle-juvenile-children-ABA); S. Marsh, "OP-ED: Indiscriminate Shackling of Children in Juvenile Court Should End," Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, www.jjie.ore. 2015): J. Abdul-Alim, "Justice Advocates Fight to Limit Shackles, Seclusion for Juveniles," (Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, June 18, 2015, www.jjie.org); G. Gately, "Why Do We Still Shackle Kids?". The Crime Report, (June 15, 2015); R. May, "Why Do We Still Put Kids In Shackles When they Go To Trial? Murder Suspects Come to Court in Suits. Kids Who Steal Gum Arrive in Belly Irons and Belly Chains," Washington Post, (OpEd, May 8, 2015); P. Puritz, "Shackling Juvenile Offenders can do permanent damage to our kids," Wash. Post (OpEd., Nov. 13, 2014); National Juvenile Justice Network, Policy Update: Unchain the Children. Policy Opportunities to End the Shackling of Youth in Court (Sept., 2014; www.njjn.org. checked Dec. 29, 2014); National Juvenile Defender Center, Issue Brief Ending the Indiscriminate Shackling of Youth (2014; www,njdc.info); K. McLaurin, "Children in Chains: Indiscriminate Shackling of Juveniles," 38 Wash. U.J.L.&Policy 213(2012); H. Ted Rubin, "Shackling Juveniles for Court Hearings; Only if Necessary," 16 Juvenile Justice Update 1:1 (Feb./March, 2010); Zeno, "Shackling Children During Court Appearances: Fairness and Security in Juvenile Courtrooms," 12 J.Gender Race & Just. 257 (2009); Perlmutter, "Unchain the Children; Gault, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Shackling," 5 Barry L. Rev. 1(2007).

{9} Schatz, supra, note 8; 0. Gately, supra, note 8.

{10} A study of 20,000 youth appearing in Miami-Dade County juvenile court from 2006, when the county limited shackline, through 2011 indicated no incidents of flight or harm. See Puritz, supra, note 8, and ABA, supra, note 1. And no incidents were reported by Judge Daniel Murphy regarding ten years of experience in Linn County, Oregon. Sec Rubin, supra, note 8 at 11,

{11} See, e.g., e-mail from Hon. Jay D. Blitzman, First Justice, Massachusetts Juvenile Court, Middlesex Division, dated Nov. 26, 2014.