November 28, 1977

Mr. Robert R. Slocum 
Walworth County State's Attorney 
Post Office Box 575 
Mobridge, South Dakota 57601

Official Opinion No. 77-96

Liability of county for costs incurred in juvenile delinquency proceedings

Dear Mr. Slocum:

You have requested an opinion based on the following factual situation:

FACTS: 

“X” is a 14 year old girl who has been a ward of the South Dakota Department of Social Services since she was 3.  In May of 1977, “X” was placed in a foster home in County A but subsequently stole a vehicle and was apprehended in County B.  A caseworker from the Department of Social Services then transported “X” to a temporary detention center in County C whereupon that county's State's Attorney, upon request of County A's State's Attorney, initiated delinquency proceedings.  The judge in County C then ordered her detention in a juvenile detention center in County D. The final disposition was commitment to the State Training School. Costs incurred during the proceeding include attorney's fees, costs of care during detention, and mileage and other expenses for transporting “X” to the State Training School.  County C has been billed for the total cost.

Based on the above factual situation you have asked the following specific questions:

QUESTIONS: 

1.  Is County A legally obligated to reimburse County C for expenses incurred? 
    
2.  Is the State of South Dakota, through the Department of Social Services or any other agency, obligated to reimburse County C since “X” has been a ward of the State for some time?

The law relative to delinquency proceedings and assessment of costs therein is found in SDCL 26-7 and 26-8.  Because of the number of provisions dealing with costs, it is difficult to determine conclusively legislative intent as to who is legally liable.  The following statutes appear to be relevant to the facts you have presented: 
    
26-7-1.1. Proceedings in cases brought under the provisions of chapter 26-8 shall be commenced in the county in which the child resides or is present, or in which an alleged violation of law, ordinance, or court order took place. 
    
26-8-22.2. If the child or his parents, guardian, or other custodian requests an attorney and is found to be without sufficient financial means, counsel shall be appointed by the court, where the petition is for the determination that the child is either in need of supervision or delinquent.  . . . Compensation of counsel shall not exceed that provided in § § 23-2-1 and 23-2-2, which, together with the necessary costs and expenses incident to the proceedings in either the juvenile or reviewing court, or both, shall be paid by the county in which the adjudicatory hearing is held. 
    
26-8-41. The judge shall certify in a warrant of commitment to the state training school for boys or the state industrial school for girls the place in which the boy or girl resided at the time of his or her arrest. . . . No girl shall be transported to the institution without a female attendant who shall be compensated for her services by the county at the rate of five dollars per day and actual expenses. 
    
26-8-28. In counties having a population of thirty thousand or over, the board of county commissioners shall make arrangements and provision, by contract or otherwise, for the care and detention of children against whom a petition has been filed, pending the final disposition of such children under orders of the court, and in counties having a population of less than thirty thousand, the board may make such arrangements and provision.

IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:

The logical conclusion to be drawn from the above provisions, as well as others in SDCL 26-8, is that the expenses incurred in a delinquency proceeding are a proper county, as opposed to a state, expense.  This has been the consistent position of the Attorney General's Office for many years.  1949- 50 AGR 376, 1967-68 AGR 30 and 1937 AGR 100 point out that pursuant to many of the statutes in SDCL 26-8, the court is vested with the discretion to make such orders as are necessary to clarify which county or which relative, if there is one, is legally and financially responsible.

In any event, the financial burden for these costs has been statutorily placed on the counties and is not a proper charge against the State at large even though the child in question may be a “ward of the State.”  (It should be noted that SDCL 26-8-40.8, effective July 1, 1977, places financial responsibility for the “cost of care” of a minor while under court custody on the unified judicial system.)

The answer to your second question is no.

IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:

The answer to your first question, in my opinion, is implicit in the language of SDCL 26-7-1.1 wherein it is stated that delinquency proceedings are to be venued either in the county of residency of the child or the county in which the alleged offense occurred. Therefore, the reference to “county” in the subsequent statutes dealing with costs relates back to the county of proper venue.  It is a well established rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read together and, inasmuch as possible, full and consistent meaning given to each.

I do not believe the statutes contemplate the transfer of financial liability to a county other than one of the above even when the juvenile matter can be more expeditiously handled in another county.

Therefore, since “X” was residing in County A at the time of the alleged offense it is my opinion that County A, and not County C, is the proper county against which to charge expenses of the juvenile proceeding.  In the absence of a court order to the contrary it is my opinion that County A should reimburse County C.

Respectfully submitted,

William J. Janklow
Attorney General

WJJ:LLV:rw