In re A.C.
Filed 12/4/13 In re A.C. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
A.C.,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E058387
(Super.Ct.No.
INJ1100343)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior
Court of
County. Lawrence
P. Best, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On
June 6, 2011, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a),
petition charged minor and appellant A.C. (minor) with misdemeanor
violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (b) (“first petitionâ€). On June 9, 2011, minor admitted the allegation and was
adjudged a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile court placed minor on probation
for six months under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725.
On
June 16, 2011,
the People filed a second petition for two misdemeanor batteries, which had
occurred prior to the first petition (“second petitionâ€). Paragraph 1 of the second petition alleged
misdemeanor battery on a school employee under Penal Code section 243.6, and
paragraph 2 alleged misdemeanor battery on school grounds in violation of Penal
Code section 243.2, subdivision (a)(1). On
August 1, 2011,
minor admitted the allegations in paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 was
dismissed. The court placed minor on
probation for six months under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725.
On
November 29, 2011, the People filed a third petition charging minor with
misdemeanor battery on school grounds in violation of Penal Code section 243.2,
subdivision (a)(1) (“third petitionâ€). On February 15, 2012, minor admitted the allegation. The court imposed probation terms and
released minor to the custody of her mother.
On
April 2, 2012,
the People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition for
violations of probations terms (“first violation petitionâ€). On April 10, 2012, minor admitted to the probation violations
and was committed to a juvenile work program for four to six days, stayed.
On
May 7, 2012,
the People filed a second Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition
for subsequent violations of minor’s probation terms (“second violation
petitionâ€). On May 24,
2012, minor admitted
the probation violations and was committed to juvenile hall for 14 to 28 days.
On
June 25, 2012,
the People filed another Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition for
additional violations of minor’s probation terms (“third violation
petitionâ€). On July 12, 2012, minor
admitted to the probation violations. On
August 23, 2012, minor was placed in a “Wraparound program†and released to her
parents.
On
October 22, 2012, the People filed its fourth Welfare and Institutions Code
section 777 petition for additional violations of minor’s probation terms
(“fourth violation petitionâ€). On
November 15, 2012, a fifth Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 was filed
against minor (“fifth violation petitionâ€).
On November 27, 2012, the People filed a fourth petition charging minor
with misdemeanor resisting a deputy in violation of Penal Code section 148,
subdivision (a)(1) (“fourth petitionâ€).
On
November 28, 2012, the court held a detention
hearing on the fourth and fifth violation petitions and the fourth
petition. At the hearing, minor admitted
the allegations included in all three petitions. The court committed minor to juvenile hall
for 10 to 14 days.
On
January 2, 2013, the People filed a sixth Welfare and Institutions Code section
777 petition for a new violation of minor’s probation terms (“sixth violation
petitionâ€). At the January 22, 2013
contested jurisdiction hearing, the court found that the allegations were
untrue and not established by the evidence.
On
January 29, 2013, the People filed a seventh Welfare and Institutions Code
section 777 petition for violation of probation terms (“seventh violation
petitionâ€). On February 21, 2013, the
People filed a fifth petition charging minor with misdemeanor possession of
marijuana on school grounds in violation of Health and Safety Code section
11357, subdivision (e) (“fifth petitionâ€).
On February 22, 2013, minor admitted the allegations contained in both
petitions.
On
March 19, 2013, after a contested disposition hearing related to the seventh
violation petition and fifth petition, the court found that continuance in the
home of the parent or guardian would be contrary to minor’s welfare and ordered
minor placed in a suitable foster or group home, relative home, country or
private facility.
On
March 25, 2013, minor filed her notice of
appeal from the March 19, 2013, placement order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On
March 19, 2013, the trial court held a disposition hearing on minor’s fifth
petition and seventh violation petition.
Prior
to the hearing, on March 5, 2013, probation filed a dispositional
memorandum. The memorandum included a
minor’s statement section, which reported minor’s belief that she should be
placed with her uncle. Minor stated that
living with her father was not acceptable because she lacked personal space at
his home and was unable to have a social life because of his strict rules. Living with her mother was also difficult
because their relationship was volatile.
Statements from both her father and mother agreed with minor’s
assessment that placement with her uncle was the best option.
Probation
recommended that minor be ordered placed outside the home in a facility that
“will provide the minor with counseling and the structure to address her
suicidal behavior, issues of anger, impulsive behavior . . . and
educational needs.†In reaching this
decision, probation and the Wraparound team had decided that, because of a
recent suicide attempt, “the minor’s past self-injurious behaviors, her
on-going drug problems, and repeated running away it is the belief of the
Wraparound Team the minor requires the intense supervision and therapy that can
be provided by a placement facility.â€
At
the disposition hearing, the People submitted on the recommendation contained
in the probation memorandum. Minor’s
counsel argued in favor of placement with minor’s uncle. In support of this, minor’s counsel called
the author of the probation memorandum, Probation Officer Jennifer Atkinson, to
testify. Counsel questioned Officer
Atkinson on the decision-making process.
Officer Atkinson indicated that, while the Wraparound team initially
indicated a willingness to continue working with minor and considered placement
with minor’s uncle, the team never visited the uncle’s home to assess the
appropriateness of the placement. The
screening committee, the Wraparound team, and the officer concluded that
placement was appropriate before a site visit to minor’s uncle’s home
occurred. The screening committee never
met with minor in making their recommendation or participating in the decision
for placement. Officer Atkinson met with
minor once while she was in juvenile hall.
Minor’s
father testified. He expressed his
preference for placement with minor’s uncle and aunt. The father believed that the placement would
work because minor “would be living and having direct contact with her cousin,
and both of them are the same age and they both get along really well. So that to me would be a big factor.†The father also indicated that “the
difference would be [the uncle] and his wife.
They are both very, very patient people.
They are very understanding and they are willing to do 100 percent of
what they can offer to [minor].â€
Minor’s
uncle and aunt also testified. They
sated that they would be willing to participate with minor in the Wraparound
program. The uncle testified that prior
overnight stays by minor had been positive and trouble free.
At
the conclusion of the hearing, the court noted that minor had been in the
juvenile system since June 2011. “There
are numerous violations of probation, numerous petitions. She has had numerous opportunities to benefit
from community resources. She has chosen
not to do that. She could have lived at
father’s house a long time ago but chose not to because father has rules. [Minor] doesn’t like rules. [¶] I
don’t have any reason to believe living with the uncle would be any
different. Probation’s recommendation is
appropriate, and I intend to follow it.â€
Thereafter,
the court ordered minor placed in a “suitable foster home, group home, relative
home, county or private facility with no preference for a period as deemed
necessary by staff and probation on condition she obey staff and rules.†The court also made findings that continuing
in the home of the parent or guardian would be contrary to minor’s welfare and
ordered her removed from the custody of her parents.
ANALYSIS
After minor appealed, and upon
her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority
of People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
These procedures apply to juvenile delinquency cases. (In re
Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.)
We
offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has
not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of
we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable
issues.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Minor appeals solely from the March 19, 2013,
placement order. Therefore, we shall
discuss facts pertaining to that order.
