Technically speaking, I would argue that because the kid is not allowed to leave without facing charges that he/she is court-ordered to be at HLA.
I think RB is right, though, that this is merely a technicality legally, but practically speaking, any reasonable person would conclude that if one is disallowed from walking out, that person is, in effect, mandated to be there. I think reasonable laypeople understand this concept and it speaks more to fraud than anything else.
We'll find out in a few days if it has legal merit...