938.13 Jurisdiction over juveniles alleged to be in need of protection or services. Except as provided in s. 938.028 (3), the court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a juvenile alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court if any of the following conditions applies:
(4) Uncontrollable. The juvenile's parent or guardian signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is unable or needs assistance to control the juvenile.
(6) Habitually truant from school. Except as provided under s. 938.17 (2), the juvenile is habitually truant from school and evidence is provided by the school attendance officer that the activities under s. 118.16 (5) have been completed or were not required to be completed as provided in s. 118.16 (5m).
(6m) School dropout. The juvenile is a school dropout, as defined in s. 118.153 (1) (b).
(7) Habitually truant from home. The juvenile is habitually truant from home and either the juvenile, a parent or guardian, or a relative in whose home the juvenile resides signs the petition requesting jurisdiction and attests in court that reconciliation efforts have been attempted and have failed.
(12) Delinquent act before age 10. The juvenile is under 10 years of age and has committed a delinquent act.
(14) Not responsible or not competent. The juvenile has been determined, under s. 938.30 (5) (c), to be not responsible for a delinquent act by reason of mental disease or defect or has been determined, under s. 938.30 (5) (d), to be not competent to proceed.
History: 1995 a. 77, 275; 1997 a. 35, 239; 2005 a. 344; 2009 a. 94.
Sub. (6) specifically requires that the school attendance officer provide evidence that the activities under s. 118.16 (5) have been completed or were not required due to an exception under s. 118.16 (5m). Sub. (6) does not state that a protective services order requires a school attendance officer to provide evidence that all of the requirements under s. 118.16 were met. Richland County Health and Human Services v. Brandon L.Y. 2008 WI App 73, 312 Wis. 2d 406, 753 N.W.2d 529, 07-0834.
Age limits on criminal, juvenile delinquency, and juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS) matters both define and restrict how a circuit court may address the specific case before the court, and not whether a circuit court can hear criminal, juvenile delinquency, or JIPS matters generally. Therefore, age limits are an issue of statutory competency, rather than subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike challenges to subject matter jurisdiction, challenges to statutory competency may be forfeited or waived. State v. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 381 Wis. 2d 522, 912 N.W.2d 16, 15-2328.
A defendant's age at the time he or she is charged, not the defendant's age at the time he or she commits the underlying conduct, determines whether the circuit court has statutory competency to hear the case as a criminal, juvenile delinquency, or juvenile in need of protection or services matter. Consequently, the circuit court in this case possessed statutory competency to hear the defendant's case as a criminal matter because the defendant was an adult at the time he was charged for conduct he committed before his tenth birthday. State v. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 381 Wis. 2d 522, 912 N.W.2d 16, 15-2328.