Writ application denied.
I concur in the denial of the writ application. Within a juvenile courts general authority is the “authority to issue such writs and orders as may be necessary or proper in aid of its jurisdiction.” La. Ch.C. art. 318. Chapter 15 of the Childrens Code pertains to “predisposition investigation,” the topic at issue. That chapter contains four articles: Article 888 (“Physical & mental examination for disposition; costs”), Article 889 (“Disclosure of resulting evaluation report”), Article 890 (“Predisposition report; contents”), and Article 891 (“Disclosure of predisposition report”). As counsel concedes, the Childrens Code does not mandate that a court order a predisposition investigation (“PDI”) report before disposition. See La. Ch.C. art. 890.
Counsel for M.F. contends that because what was requested here is in all respects identical to the PDI report contents listed at Article 890, minus a recommendation, the court has erroneously applied and interpreted Article 890, and this court should correct the error. This argument does not withstand close scrutiny. First, by seeking to pigeonhole the social history that was requested as a defective PDI report, counsel ignores the courts broader authority to issue orders necessary to aid in the exercise of its juvenile jurisdiction. La. Ch.C. art. 318. The court is authorized to order PDI report, but the court is not required to do so. Regardless of whether counsel credits the courts stated reason
1
for seeking a modified report without a recommendation, there appears no basis for finding such a request to be illegal or outside the scope of the courts authority.
Counsel also argues that what the juvenile court did here was error under La. Ch.C. art. 888, which provides for physical and mental evaluations of a juvenile prior to the disposition. Because the social history in this case was not ordered “in conjunction with” a physical or mental evaluation, it was improper, counsel asserts. This argument is unavailing for the same reason as the first argument. Further, Article 888 provides that a court may order physical and mental examinations and that, in conjunction with any such directives, the court may order a social summary/case history. La. Ch.C. art. 888(A) & (B). Article 888 does not mandate that any of those steps be taken, nor does it prohibit them under certain circumstances. Seeking to invalidate the request for a social history of M.F., counsel seems to fail to address the larger framework of the Childrens Code and the authority a juvenile court has to consider a range of factors in crafting a disposition. See La. Ch.C. art. 901 (setting forth disposition guidelines). Moreover, this application failed to specify the terms of the disposition ultimately imposed here and did not demonstrate that the outcome was in any way inconsistent with the law, the best interests of the juvenile, or, for that matter, what the Office of Juvenile Justice (“OJJ”) would have recommended.
To the extent that the application seeks to establish that this issue was not rendered moot by the entry of M.F.’s disposition, it has overlooked another seemingly pertinent issue: the question of standing. Given that the arguments advanced do not address any particular basis for M.F.’s adjudication or address the disposition in this case, instead relating only to OJJs claimed right to make a recommendation if ever a court decides to study a juveniles background before the disposition, this application reads more like one that ought to have been filed by OJJ itself. Perhaps if this issue is as pernicious as M.F.’s attorney now claims, a representative from OJJ will take it up in the future.
FOOTNOTES
1
. That reason was given at a hearing in another case before this judge. See Appl., pp. 11–12/68.
Griffin, J., would grant.
Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons.