Hart v. Bull

²³¹ WEANT, Judge. Appellants are Michael C. Hart, a juvenile, and Charles L. Hart Jr. and Donna Hart, as parents and next friends of Michael C. Hart. Appellees are four juveniles and their respective parents. Michael Hart alleges that on 15 March 1985 he was assaulted by the four juvenile appellees.

In an effort to recover medical expenses incurred as a consequence of Michael’s assault-related injuries appellants’ attorney filed a petition for restitution in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting as a Juvenile Court. The petition stated that appellants were entitled to an award of restitution from appellees pursuant to the provisions of Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 3-829. 1 Section 3-829 specifies, among other things, the circumstances in which a juvenile court may order restitution against a child or the parent of a child. The master who initially considered the Harts’ private petition recommended that the juvenile court dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because 1) there was never a finding of a delinquent act as required by § 3-829 and 2) the petition was not timely filed. The master expressly declined to address whether a private party could properly file a petition for restitution in a juvenile court.

Appellants took exception to the master’s recommendation. The matter was heard by the Honorable Edward A. Dewaters Jr. Appellants’ attorney argued the case and an Assistant State’s Attorney was available to answer questions posed by the court. Judge Dewaters dismissed the action and this appeal followed. The questions as posed by appellants are: 1.

Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 3-829 of the Annotated Code of Maryland permit Appellants to file a petition in the Juvenile Court for restitution of ²³² dental and medical expenses resulting from the delinquent act of a juvenile in the absence of prior official action to secure an adjudication of delinquency? 2. Does public policy authorize the filing of a petition for restitution by Appellants pursuant to Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article 3-829 in the absence of action taken by the State’s Attorney to adjudicate a finding of delinquency against a juvenile offender? 3. Did the Juvenile Court of Baltimore County have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the Petition for Restitution filed by Appellants herein pursuant to Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 3-829? 1. and 3. We understand appellants’ first contention to be whether a petition for restitution is properly before the juvenile court when it is filed by private persons.

That issue is not addressed by § 3-829. “It is a hornbook rule of statutory construction that, in ascertaining the intention of the Legislature, all parts of a statute are to be read together to find the intention as to any one part____” Thomas v. Police Commissioner of Baltimore City, 211 Md. 357, 361 , 127 A.2d 625, 627 (1956). See also Greco v. State, 307 Md. 470 , 515 A.2d 220 (1986). Thus the entire subtitle concerning the jurisdiction of juvenile causes must be considered to resolve appellants’ question. Jurisdiction is, among other things, the power of a court to render a valid decree.

Moore v. McAllister, 216 Md. 497, 508 , 141 A.2d 176, 182 (1958); see also Preissman v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 64 Md.App. 552, 559 , 497 A.2d 826, 829 (1985). Section 3-804 addresses the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Subsection (a) of § 3-804 provides that the juvenile court has “jurisdiction over a child alleged to be delinquent, in need of assistance, in need of ²³³ supervision,