In re No. 1140

Couch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant has taken this appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Cecil County, sitting as a Juvenile Court, adjudicating appellant to be delinquent and committing him to the Maryland Training School for Boys for an indefinite period, subject to a minimum committal to that institution of one year. The order also provided that, upon release, appellant would be placed on probation for an indefinite period. One issue is raised in this appeal: “Did the Court have the authority to prescribe a minimum period of confinement?” Several statutory provisions govern the disposition of the juvenile after he has been adjudicated delinquent.

See especially Md. Code (1974), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 3-820. The statutory provision pertinent to the question presented in this case is Md. Code (1974), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 3-825, which deals with the period of time a disposition order may remain effective. Section 3-825 provides:. “(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), an order vesting legal custody in an individual, agency, or institution is effective for an indeterminate period of time. (b) An order providing for custody of a child adjudicated delinquent or in need of supervision may not exceed three years from the date entered.

However, the court may renew the order upon its own motion, or pursuant to a petition filed by the individual, institution, or agency having legal custody after notice and hearing :as prescribed by the Maryland Rules. (c) An order under this section is not effective after the child becomes 21 years old.” The precise question presented in this case, whether the Juvenile Court may impose a minimum period of confinement under § 3-825, has never been addressed by this Court or the ⁶¹¹ Court of Appeals. We are not compelled, however, to consider the question in a vacuum. The express purposes of the juvenile justice process in Maryland, as envisioned and enacted by the General Assembly, provide a guide for the construction of § 3-825.

Section 3-802 of the Courts Article provides: “(a) The purposes of this subtitle are: (1) To provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of this subtitle; and to provide for a program of treatment, training, and rehabilitation consistent with the child’s best interests and the protection of the public interest; (2) To remove from children committing delinquent acts the taint of criminality and the consequences of criminal behavior; (3) To conserve and strengthen the child’s family ties and to separate a child from his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety; (4) If necessary to remove a child from his home, to secure for him custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his parents. (5) To provide judicial procedures for carrying out the provisions of this subtitle. (b) This subtitle shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes.” The courts, in similar terms, have followed § 3-802 in expressing the broad goals of the juvenile court system. Moquin v. State, 216 Md. 524, 528 , 140 A. 2d 914, 917 (1958).

This Court stated in In re Appeal Misc. No. 32, 29 Md. App. 701 , 351 A. 2d 164 (1976): “Juvenile proceedings are of a special species that has been designed by the General