Page 79 - Juvenile Practice is not Child's Play

statement to elicit post-warning statements is impermissible. 542 U.S. at 604. Therefore, F.L.’s statement to the officer

while at the police station must be suppressed as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
pursuant to Miranda and Seibert.

XIII.
Did not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive entitlement to have parent present

A person who takes a child into custody is required to “promptly give notice of the person’s action and a
statement of the reason for taking the child into custody” to the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian. Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 52.02(b). Failure to comply with this requirement may result in exclusion of any statement obtained from
custodial interrogation when the statement is taken at a juvenile processing center. See In re C. R., 995 S.W.2d 778,
780 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied) (holding that the statement given during the violation should have been
excluded from evidence). A child who has been taken into custody and taken to a juvenile processing office for the

purpose of obtaining a confession is entitled to have a parent present under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §52.02(c) if he or she
desires. F.L. was not informed of this right and therefore did not knowingly waive the right. While there is not
caselaw explicitly requiring the child be advised by law enforcement or judge of this right, it is clear that it is a right

that belongs to the child nonetheless. Furthermore, it seems separate from separate from Section 51.095. Where a
child is brought to a juvenile processing center and has not been advised of the right or waived the right without an
attorney present, the child is wrongfully deprived of the statutory protections of the state. F.L. was neither informed
of this entitlement, nor did he knowingly waive it. As such, any statements made should be suppressed as an effect of
the wrong doing and coercive behavior of the state.