When a juvenile delinquency or dependency hearing is held in one South Dakota county but the parents had been long-time welfare recipients of another county, which county pays the prosecution expenses, and can the welfare county reimburse the hearing county for those costs?
Plain-English summary
Two related families, "X" and "Y," had been long-term welfare recipients of Walworth County. By 1965 they had moved out, first to Corson County, then briefly to North Dakota, then back to Corson County, and finally to Perkins County. In May 1966 the Perkins County State's Attorney filed petitions in Perkins County juvenile court charging dependency and neglect of the children of both families. The state's attorney subpoenaed witnesses and ran up about $200 in prosecution costs. Perkins County paid them.
Perkins County wanted to know whether it could shift that cost to Walworth County, since Walworth had been the welfare county for the parents. Two specific questions went to the AG. Which county should bear the cost? And can the Walworth County Commissioners voluntarily reimburse Perkins County?
The AG answered both questions the same way regardless of how the case was characterized. If the action was framed as a criminal proceeding against the parents for contributing to delinquency of a minor, the standard criminal-cost rule applies: the county where a criminal case is prosecuted pays its costs. State v. Howell applied normal criminal procedure rules to juvenile-related criminal prosecutions, modified only by SDC 43.04. The result was the same either way.
If the action was instead a civil dependency or neglect proceeding to declare the children dependent or neglected, the AG's office had said since at least 1949-50 that the county prosecuting the action pays the witness fees and process-service expenses. A long line of AG opinions (1918, 1937-38, 1939-40, 1955-56, 1963-64) had also held that venue in juvenile cases lies either where the alleged delinquent lives or where the alleged delinquent acts occurred. Wherever the case is prosecuted, the costs go with the case.
So Perkins County, the county that held the hearing, must bear the costs. And on the second question, the AG said no. Counties cannot spend money out of the county treasury unless the expenditure is budgeted and legislatively authorized. There is no statute authorizing one county to voluntarily reimburse another for juvenile-prosecution costs incurred in a different county. Without that authority, the Walworth County Commissioners had no power to write the check, no matter how sympathetic the request.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1966. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. SD's juvenile court and dependency-and-neglect statutes have been comprehensively rewritten since 1966 (the old SDC 43.04 framework has been replaced by modern SDCL Title 26), and modern cost-allocation rules may differ. The general principle that county commissioners need statutory authority to spend treasury funds remains a stable feature of SD law, but specific intergovernmental reimbursement statutes may now exist that the 1966 AG could not have considered.
What the opinion meant at the time
For Perkins County in 1966, the opinion meant the $200 cost stayed on its books. There was no statutory route to push it back to Walworth County, even though Walworth had been the parents' welfare county for years.
For Walworth County Commissioners, the opinion was a check on a sympathy-based request. Even if they wanted to help out Perkins County, county-budgeting law forbade the voluntary reimbursement absent specific authority.
For state's attorneys deciding where to file dependency or neglect petitions, the opinion confirmed the long-standing rule that the AG had repeated across multiple decades: file either where the alleged delinquent lives or where the alleged acts occurred. Wherever filed, the filing county pays.
For county auditors and budget officers, the opinion reinforced that the SD county-treasury rules require budget authority for every expenditure. No budgeted line, no payment.
For families like "X" and "Y" who moved across county lines while receiving welfare, the opinion clarified that juvenile proceedings would be heard and paid for by the county where the case was filed, not by the historical welfare county.
Common questions
Q: Why did Perkins County want Walworth County to pay?
A: Walworth had been the welfare county for the families for years, so it seemed natural that Walworth should bear the juvenile-case costs that arose from the same families' children. The AG did not address the policy fairness; the question was strictly whether the law allowed the cost shift.
Q: Did the form of the action change the answer?
A: No. Whether it was a criminal action against the parents for contributing to delinquency, or a civil dependency-and-neglect proceeding to adjudicate the children, the costs stayed with the prosecuting county.
Q: What governed venue in juvenile cases?
A: The AG's office had repeated since 1918 that venue lies either where the alleged delinquent resides or where the acts of delinquency occurred. The state's attorney has discretion to file in either, and the choice of venue carries the cost.
Q: Could Walworth County reimburse Perkins County voluntarily?
A: No. County commissioners cannot spend treasury money without budgeted, legislatively authorized purposes. There was no statute authorizing voluntary cross-county reimbursement of juvenile-case costs.
Q: What is the SDC 43.04 reference?
A: SDC 43.04 was the 1939 SD code chapter governing juvenile court procedure. State v. Howell held that ordinary criminal procedure applies to contributing-to-delinquency prosecutions except where SDC 43.04 modified the rules.
Q: Are these older AGR citations binding?
A: They are AG opinions, which carry persuasive weight in SD but are not binding precedent in the way court decisions are. The 1966 AG cited them to show a consistent office position over nearly half a century.
Q: Does this rule still apply today?
A: SD's juvenile justice statutes have been substantially rewritten since 1966. The current SDCL Title 26 governs juvenile court, and modern cost-allocation may differ. Anyone working with current juvenile-court costs should check current statutes and any modern AG opinions.
Background and statutory framework
In the mid-1960s SD juvenile cases ran on the SDC 43.04 framework, the 1939-vintage codification of juvenile court procedure. Counties prosecuted both criminal contributing-to-delinquency cases (treated as criminal under standard procedure, modified by 43.04) and civil dependency or neglect cases (handled under specific juvenile procedure). Venue for either type lay where the child lived or where the conduct occurred, an old rule the AG's office had repeated since 1918.
County finance worked on strict budget-authority principles. A county auditor could not pay a claim unless the expenditure had been budgeted and a statute authorized it. Voluntary intergovernmental transfers between counties (one county helping another with its expenses) had to fit within the same budget-and-authority framework, and the AG's office routinely rejected freelance cross-county payments that lacked statutory grounding.
The 1966 facts were a typical mobile-family scenario. Families "X" and "Y" had been on Walworth County welfare for years. They moved to Corson County in summer 1965, briefly to North Dakota, back to Corson County, and on to Perkins County. In May 1966 the Perkins County State's Attorney filed dependency and neglect petitions in Perkins County juvenile court. The hearings ran up about $200 in prosecution costs (witness fees and process service), which Perkins County paid.
The AG opinion does the kind of cross-mapping that 1960s opinions often did. It treats the question as governed by the same rule under either possible legal characterization. If the action was criminal, county-of-prosecution pays. If the action was civil dependency, county-of-prosecution still pays (per the 1949-50 AGR 376 opinion the AG quotes). The convergence makes the answer easy.
The second question, about voluntary reimbursement, hits the SD county-treasury rule directly. The opinion's phrasing ("the irrefutable proposition that county commissioners cannot expend public funds from the county treasury unless such an expenditure is budgeted and authorized by law") is a standard formulation of the SD rule and survives in modern doctrine, even though specific intergovernmental reimbursement statutes may now provide authority the 1966 AG could not find.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDC 43.04 (1939 juvenile court procedure)
Cases:
- State v. Howell, 77 SD 518, 95 NW 2d 36
Prior AG opinions:
- 1918 AGR 195
- 1937-1938 AGR 555
- 1939-1940 AGR 535
- 1949-1950 AGR 376
- 1955-1956 AGR 244
- 1963-1964 AGR 89
Source
Original opinion text
Minors. Expenses of hearing Petition on delinquency or contributing to delinquency of minors must be borne by county where action is held. No reimbursement from another county.
You have requested an official opinion based upon the following facts:
"In May 1966 a petition was filed by myself in the Juvenile Court of Perkins County, South Dakota, charging dependency and neglect of the children of "X" and another like petition was filed regarding the children of "Y". For several years both "X" and "Y" had been residents of Walworth County for welfare purposes, and in Summer of 1965 had moved to McLaughlin, Corson County, South Dakota, they then moved to North Dakota for a short time, returned to McIntosh, Corson County, for a few weeks and then moved to Perkins County. At all times these parents were recipients of county assistance from Walworth County. The dependency and neglect hearings were held in Perkins County, and the State's Attorney of such County did subpoena witnesses and incurred expenses of approximately two hundred dollars in the prosecution of such matter. All of such expenses were paid by Perkins County."
In view of this factual situation you have asked the following questions:
"1. Which of the two counties, Walworth or Perkins County, should bear the expense of such proceedings?
"2. Do the Walworth County Commissioners have authority to reimburse Perkins County for the expense of such proceedings?
If the action described in the above statement of fact was an action in which the parents of the described children were charged with contributing to the delinquency of minor children, such action is criminal in nature and the laws governing criminal prosecution in general apply except as they are modified by the provisions of SDC 43.04, and acts amendatory thereof. State v. Howell, 77 SD 518, 95 NW 2d 36. It is so elementary, that a citation is unnecessary, that the county in which a criminal action is tried must pay the costs of such prosecution of the criminal case. This applies no matter in which of the various courts of our state such criminal action may be prosecuted.
If, on the other hand, the action which was commenced was in fact an action to declare such children delinquent, neglected or dependent children, the result is still the same.
This office has on many occasions held that the venue of an action to declare a minor child to be delinquent may be had in either the county where the alleged delinquent resides or the county where the acts of delinquency occurred, irrespective of his actual residence. See 1918 AGR 195, 1937-1938 AGR 555, 1939-1940 AGR 535, 1955-1956 AGR 244 and 1963-1964 AGR 89.
My predecessor in office in an opinion reported in 1949-1950 AGR 376 held that when proceedings are commenced in county court to declare a minor child delinquent that the expense incurred in serving the process and the expense of witnesses subpoenaed by the courts are properly chargeable to the proper budget appropriation for the county court or for witness fees of the county in which such action is prosecuted.
The answer to Question No. 1 is that Perkins County, the county where such action was prosecuted, must bear the expenses of such proceedings. In answer to Question No. 2, in view of the irrefutable proposition that county commissioners cannot expend public funds from the county treasury unless such an expenditure is budgeted and authorized by law, it is my conclusion that the County Commissioners of Walworth County have no authority to reimburse Perkins County for the expenses of such proceedings.