This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CX-99-1105

In the Matter of the Welfare of: M.H.

Filed January 11, 2000
Affirmed in Part and Remanded
Davies, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. J598059989

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park St., Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103-2106; and

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, J. Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent state)

William E. McGee, Chief Fourth District Public Defender, Warren R. Sagstuen, Assistant Public Defender, 317 Second Ave. S., #200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2700 (for appellant M.H.)

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Davies, Judge, and Foley, Judge.[*]

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

DAVIES, Judge

Appellant juvenile challenges the juvenile court’s order finding a probation violation and committing him to the Commissioner of Corrections. We affirm in part and remand for findings.

FACTS

Appellant M.H. was adjudicated delinquent on two charges of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered that appellant successfully complete the Hennepin County Home School 12-month Adolescent Male Offender Program. On September 8, 1998, appellant entered the program.

On May 21, 1999, the state filed a motion to modify the disposition based on the county home school’s recommendation that appellant be terminated from the program. At a hearing on June 2, 1999, the court received into evidence reports that: (1) appellant’s attitude impeded his progress; (2) appellant had a negative impact on other participants; (3) appellant intentionally defied expectations; and (4) appellant lacked the motivation to participate successfully in the program. Along with this, appellant admitted that on several occasions he knowingly failed to comply with what was expected under the program. Based on this evidence, the juvenile court terminated appellant from the county home school and committed him to the Commissioner of Corrections for placement at Red Wing.

D E C I S I O N

Appellant first challenges the juvenile court’s finding that he violated the dispositional order. A violation is proved if the court finds "by clear and convincing evidence, or the child admits violating the terms of the dispositional order." Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.07, subd. 4(D). The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant violated probation by failing to comply with the conditions of the county home school program. We affirm the revocation of the original dispositional order.

Appellant also contends that the juvenile court committed reversible error on the disposition change when it failed to make written factual findings. After a violation, the court may "order a disposition pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 260.185," which may include transfer of legal custody to the Commissioner of Corrections if necessary for the rehabilitation of the child. Id. at subd. 4(D)(1); Minn. Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1(d) (1998). "Trial courts have broad discretion to order dispositions authorized by statute in delinquency cases." In re Welfare of M.A.C., 455 N.W.2d 494, 498 (Minn. App. 1990). "Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a trial court’s disposition will not be disturbed." Id. The new dispositional order, however, must be supported by written findings describing: (1) why the new disposition serves the best interests of the child; and (2) what alternative dispositions were proposed to the court and why these alternatives were not ordered. Id. at 498-99. A failure to make written findings is reversible error. Id. at 499.

We conclude that the absence of findings precludes meaningful review of the disposition. We therefore remand for written findings on the disposition modification. The juvenile court is authorized to reconsider the disposition. See Minn. Stat. § 260.185, subd. 4 (1998) (juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction to review order and to change disposition).

Affirmed in part and remanded.

[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.