DC · rules
D.C. Super. Ct. Juv. R. 43
Presence of the Respondent
(a) In general. The respondent must be physically present at the initial hearing, at the
factfinding hearing, and at the entry of a dispositional order, except as otherwise provided
by Rule 43(b) or D.C. Code § 16-2316(f) (2012 Repl.).
(b) Authority for video teleconferencing or telephone conferencing. The court may permit
any proceeding to occur by video teleconferencing or by telephone conferencing if:
(A) the respondent consents after consultation with counsel;
(B) the government consents; and
(C) the court makes an inquiry on the record to ensure that:
(i) the respondent’s consent is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; and
(ii) the respondent has an adequate opportunity to consult confidentially with counsel
immediately before, during, and at the conclusion of the proceeding.
(c) Waiving presence.
(1) Voluntary Absence. A respondent who was initially present at the factfinding
hearing waives the right to be present where the respondent is voluntarily absent after the
factfinding hearing has begun, regardless of whether the court informed the respondent of
an obligation to remain during the factfinding hearing. The factfinding hearing may proceed
to completion, including the adjudication, during the respondent’s absence.
(2) Upon motion by the respondent, the court may grant a respondent’s waiver of the
right to be present at any proceeding.
History
COMMENT TO 2022 AMENDMENTS Rule 43 has been amended to expand the Superior Court’s authority to permit a respondent to appear by video teleconferencing or telephone conferencing, i.e., remotely. The amended rule is modeled on 2022 amendments to Criminal Rule 43. It largely tracks, and makes permanent, temporary emergency authority the court exercised during the COVID-19 pandemic to hold remote hearings. The court’s experience during COVID-19 has shown that remote juvenile proceedings function well. COMMENT TO 2020 TEMPORARY AMENDMENTS New section (c) provides explicit authority for the court to conduct proceedings by video teleconference or telephone conference if the Chief Judge has issued an order under D.C. Code § 11-947 (2019 Supp.) based on COVID-19 and there is a case specific finding. The section is modeled after provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136 (CARES Act), § 15002 (2020), and resulting district court orders. The CARES Act permitted the Judicial Conference of the United States to find that emergency conditions materially affected the functioning of the federal courts or a particular district court of the United States. The Chief Judge of a covered district court could then authorize the use of video teleconferencing or telephone conferencing for additional proceedings with certain conditions.
Provenance
- Source
- dccourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-14
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
2424f8944f421ab47667b914ac3b80aad2dd4d4ce30e8459ef87e4f779ee62e0
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.