Court erases contempt order against state agency

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 | 8:20 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Monday erased a contempt-of-court citation issued against the state Division of Child and Family Services after the agency refused a district court order to remove a 14-year-old foster child from a psychiatric treatment center in Las Vegas.

The division, acting on the advice of Dr. Ann Childress, put the boy in the Spring Mountain Psychiatric facility after he stomped on another child's leg and exhibited violent behavior toward his foster mother. He had a history of self-inflicted wounds and violence toward others.

At a hearing Oct. 8 before Judge Gerald Hardcastle to review the progress of the child, the state agency revealed it had placed the boy in the center but did not present a report from Childress, who had not prepared a written evaluation.

Hardcastle ordered the state to remove the child and to prepare a plan for the further treatment of the boy. He said the behavior of the state did not warrant commitment to a psychiatric facility.

He said the child should be released, despite the advice of Childress.

But the judge declined to sign a written order so no formal order was entered by the court clerk. After subsequent hearings, the judge learned on Oct. 20 the state had not removed the child.

He then issued the contempt of court citation and imposed a $500 penalty for every day the boy remained at the psychiatric facility.

The Hardcastle order was stayed by the Supreme Court while it considered the case.

The Supreme Court said Hardcastle had the authority to order the child released, but the court said Hardcastle's order had to be written, signed and filed before it became effective.

"We wish to emphasize that the district court acted in good faith by expecting the parties to comply with its oral release order, especially after the court expressly clarified its order," the high court ruled.

"By refusing the follow the district court's mandate, the division of child and family services created the appearance that it considered itself at liberty to disregard the judicial order. Not surprisingly, the district court found the DCFS' conduct contemptuous."