Tennessee § 37-1-101 - Purpose — Jurisdiction — Ensuring compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.

§ 37-1-101. Purpose — Jurisdiction — Ensuring compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.

This part shall be construed to effectuate the following public purposes: Provide for the care, protection, and wholesome moral, mental and physical development of children coming within its provisions; Consistent with the protection of the public interest, remove from children committing delinquent acts the taint of criminality and the consequences of criminal behavior and substitute therefor a program of treatment, training and rehabilitation; Achieve the foregoing purposes in a family environment whenever possible, separating the child from such child's parents only when necessary for such child's welfare or in the interest of public safety; Provide a simple judicial procedure through which this part is executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights recognized and enforced; Provide simple interstate procedures that permit resort to cooperative measures among the juvenile courts of the several states when required to effectuate the purposes of this part; Generally deinstitutionalize children who have not been found to be delinquent; and Provide developmentally appropriate interventions based on current scientific research in related fields, including neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and criminology. It is the intention of the general assembly in the passage of this part to promulgate laws relative to children that are to be uniform in application throughout the state. Each of the juvenile courts in all the counties and municipalities of the state as described in § 37-1-102 have all of the jurisdiction, authority, rights, powers and duties prescribed by this part, and any additional jurisdiction, authority, rights, powers or duties conferred by special or private act upon any of the juvenile courts in the state are not intended to be invalidated or repealed by this part, except where inconsistent or in conflict with any provisions of this part. Whenever a juvenile court conducts a child custody proceeding, as defined in § 36-6-205, the court shall ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, compiled in 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. Acts 1970, ch. 600, §§ 1, 59; 1979, ch. 289, § 1; T.C.A., §§ 37-201, 37-259; Acts 2009, ch. 317, § 1; 2018, ch. 1052, § 2. Compiler's Notes. Rules of Juvenile Procedure were adopted by the Supreme Court on February 1, 1983, effective July 1, 1984. See Tennessee Court Rules Annotated. Acts 2018, ch. 1052, § 1 provided that the act, which amended this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018.” Acts 2018, ch. 1052, § 55 provided that it is the intent of the general assembly that improvements to the juvenile justice system and expansion of community-based resources for justice-involved children be prioritized, including, but not limited to, evidence-based programs, informal adjustment, diversion, home placement supervision, statewide data collection, early intervention programs and services for children and families, and mental health services, especially in any county underserved with such programs and services. Amendments. The 2018 amendment added (a)(7). Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 1052, § 58. July 1, 2018; provided that for purposes of rulemaking, the act took effect on May 21, 2018. Cross-References. Appointment of referees (now magistrates) in child support cases, Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 22. Rule Reference. This title is referred to in Rule 13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. This chapter is referred to in Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. This part is referred to in the Advisory Commission Comments under Rule 501 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. This title is referred to in Rule 29 of the Tennessee Rules of Juvenile Procedure. This section is referred to in the text of Rule 1 and in the Advisory Commission Comments under Rule 34 of the Tennessee Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Law Reviews. An IEP for the Juvenile Justice System: Incorporating Special Education Law Throughout the Delinquency Process, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 869 (2014). Blended Sentencing in Tennessee Courts, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 767 (2014). Bringing Facts into Fiction: The First “Data-Based” Accountability Analysis of the Differences Between Presumptively Open, Discretionarily Open, and Closed Child-Dependency Court Systems, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 831 (2014). Differential Response in Child Protection Services: Perpetuating the Illusion of Voluntariness (Soledad A. McGrath), 42 U. Mem. L. Rev. 629 (2012). Success in Shelby County: A Roadmap to Systemic Juvenile Reform, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 727 (2014). The DOJ Comes to Town: An Argument for Legislative Reform When the Juvenile Court Fails to Protect Due Process Rights, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 921 (2014). The Essence of Justice: Independent, Ethical, and Zealous Advocacy by Juvenile Defenders, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 799 (2014). The Incarceration of the Status Offender, 18 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 713 (1988). There's No Place Like Home: The Availability of Judicial Review Over Certification Decisions Invoking Federal Jurisdiction Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1311 (2000). Toward Fundamental Fairness in the Kangaroo Courtroom: The Due Process Case Against Statutes Presumptively Closing Juvenile Proceedings, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1751 (2001). Not-So-Sweet Sixteen: When Minor Convictions Have Major Consequences Under Career Offender Guidelines (Andrew Tunnard), 66 Vand. L. Rev. 1309 (2013). “The Politics of Protecting Children”: Panel Discussion 2: Litigation For Change (Jacqueline Dixon, Professor Dean Rivkin and Robert Schwartz), 7 Tenn. J. L. & Pol'y 218 (2011). “The Politics of Protecting Children”: Panel Discussion 3: Confronting Political and Economic Challenges (Representative Sherry Jones, Connie Steere and Mary Walker), 7 Tenn. J. L. & Pol'y 289 (2011). “The Politics of Protecting Children”: Panel Discussion 4: Best Practices In Representing Children in Court (The Honorable Timothy Irwin, Carlton Lewis and Dwight Stokes), 7 Tenn. J. L. & Pol'y 324 (2011). “The Politics of Protecting Children”: Keynote Address Revisiting Luzerne County: Promoting Fairness, Transparency and Accountability In Juvenile Court (Robert Schwartz), 7 Tenn. J. L. & Pol'y 263 (2011). Attorney General Opinions. Order removing child from home county and enjoining return, OAG 99-007 (1/25/99). The juvenile court is not subject to the Parenting Plan Act, T.C.A. § 36-6-401 et seq., in any matter before the juvenile court pursuant to its exclusive original jurisdiction, OAG 01-028 (2/27/01). Authority over the juvenile court system and its employees, OAG 07-004 (1/11/07).