Filed 10/30/26 In re A.T. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re A.T., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE
A174081
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Solano County
Super. Ct. No. JV2400097)
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
In this juvenile delinquency case, A.T. pleaded no contest to
a charge that he forcibly raped his then-11-year-old cousin, in
violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2). As part of
the disposition, the trial court imposed a probation condition
prohibiting A.T. from having unsupervised contact with minors.
In this appeal, A.T. argues that, by restricting his contact with
his younger sisters, the probation condition violates his
constitutional right to association. We conclude that his
contention lacks merit, so we affirm the disposition order.
BACKGROUND
A.
The victim in this case, S.R., is A.T.’s first cousin. S.R. is
the daughter of A.T.’s maternal aunt, and she is approximately
1
five years younger than A.T. In 2022, when S.R. was 13, she
reported that A.T. had repeatedly raped and sexually abused her
beginning from when she was eight years of age. The assaults
occurred at family homes in Arizona as well as in California, in
Winters, Vacaville, and Stockton.
During a forensic interview, S.R. reported that when she
was eight, A.T. sexually assaulted her at his mother’s home in
Arizona. Referring to A.T.’s penis, she stated that A.T. “ ‘put [it]
in her butt and not the other.’ ”
On another occasion, when S.R. was visiting her
grandparents’ home in Stockton, A.T. looked at her vagina, made
her “make out with him,” and showed her explicit videos of other
people on his phone.
S.R. also reported that A.T. repeatedly assaulted her in
Winters, while A.T. and his mother and three siblings lived at his
grandparents’ home there from 2017 to 2018. S.R. was homeless
at the time and stayed at their grandparents’ home during the
summer before she started third grade. In Winters, A.T. “raped
her in the bathroom on multiple occasions.” He “would do it fast.”
S.R. recalled one occasion when A.T. entered the bathroom while
she was taking a shower. He made her get on the floor of the
bathroom and then penetrated her vagina with a condom on,
which “hurt a lot.” S.R. unsuccessfully attempted to push him
away. A.T. became angry when the condom ripped, and then
“proceeded to penetrate her anus.” That summer, A.T sexually
assaulted her two times a week, “when the adults in the home
would leave.”
The sexual assaults continued after their grandparents
moved to Vacaville, when S.R. was 11 years old. A.T. resided at
their grandparents’ Vacaville home with his mother and siblings.
The assaults occurred when S.R. was visiting their grandparents’
home. A.T. “would ask her to lift her shirt” so he could “look at
her breasts.” On one occasion, S.R. and A.T. were playing video
2
games when they got mad at one another. A.T. took her to the
bathroom, put her on the floor, got on top of her, and penetrated
her anally without a condom. On another occasion, A.T. told S.R.
to come into his bedroom to watch television. Once she went into
his room, A.T. locked the door, made her lick his private parts,
and then anally penetrated her. S.R. also recalled that A.T.
promised to buy her things if she rubbed his penis or let him rub
her vagina.
The assaults stopped after a “big family argument.”
S.R. disclosed the abuse to her mother in 2022, after being
hospitalized and placed on a psychiatric hold. As a result of the
abuse, S.R. sustained rectal and vaginal bleeding, and she was
diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and
suicidal ideology. S.R. also experienced bouts of crying and
nightmares, often had trouble sleeping, and had to attend
intensive therapy three times per week.
After S.R.’s disclosure, the police arrested A.T. in December
2022. A.T. told the police “he would never touch his cousin.”
Shortly thereafter, police released him when they determined
that he was a juvenile at the time of the incidents.
B.
In the juvenile wardship petition, the district attorney
alleged that A.T. committed oral copulation with a person under
the age of 18, between April 2016 and June 2017 (Pen. Code,
§ 287, subds. (a), (b)(1); count 1); lewd or lascivious acts upon a
child under the age of 14, between April 2016 and June 2017
(id., § 288, subd. (a); count 2); lewd and lascivious acts on a child
under the age of 14 by force or violence, between January 2017
and December 2018 (id., § 288, subd. (b)(1); count 3), seven
counts of sodomy of a child by use of force, between January 2017
and December 2018, and between April 2018 and August 2021
(id., § 286, subd. (c)(2)(B); counts 4–10), oral copulation of a
3
person under the age of 14 by force, duress, or fear, between 2018
and 2021 (id., § 287, subd. (c)(2)(B); count 11), lewd and
lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 by force or violence,
in November 2020 (id., § 288, subd. (b)(1); count 12), and forcible
rape of a child in November 2020 (id., § 261, subd. (a)(2); count
13).
After A.T. pleaded no contest to forcible rape of a child in
November 2020 (count 13), the court granted the prosecution’s
motion to dismiss the remaining counts with the stipulation that
they could be considered for sentencing purposes.
By the time of the probation officer’s July 2025
dispositional report, A.T. was 21 years old, had graduated from
high school, and was working at a Walmart. He was residing in
his mother’s home along with his 19-year-old brother, his 11-
year-old sister, his 10-year-old sister, and his mother’s boyfriend.
He had a close relationship with his mother and brother, and he
viewed his younger sisters “as his daughters.” His mother
related that A.T. was helpful around the house, helped drive her
places, and never had any behavioral difficulties.
The dispositional report indicated that, after S.R.’s
disclosure, there had been several child welfare investigations
between 2022 and 2024 concerning alleged sexual abuse by A.T.
against S.R. or his younger sisters. In a September 2022
investigation of alleged sexual abuse against A.T.’s younger
siblings, the result was a “10-Day Response” after which the
“[s]ituation [was] [s]tabilized” and the case was closed. The other
investigations concerning A.T.’s younger siblings and S.R. were
all “[e]valuated [o]ut and [c]losed.”
According to the dispositional report, based on the “Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory” assessment, A.T. had a
“Medium risk to reoffend within the community.” The
dispositional report also summarized the results of a forensic
psychological evaluation by Dr. Caroline Salvador-Moses. Dr.
4
Salvador-Moses assigned A.T. a score of 0 on the Hare
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, which indicated “a very low risk
of recidivism and criminal reoffending.” Using the Static-99R
assessment for sex offenses, Dr. Salvador-Moses assigned A.T. a
score of 2, which indicated a “Moderate to Low risk of sexually
reoffending.”
In evaluating the placement options for A.T., the
dispositional report considered “the severity of the offense, the
significant trauma caused to the victim, [A.T.’s] moderate risk of
reoffending within the community, and his lack of accountability
and responsibility.” The report also noted the “concern that the
youth remains living in a home with two minor female siblings.”
The report noted several factors weighing in favor of allowing
A.T. to remain in the community, including his lack of a prior
criminal record and the time that had passed between the offense
and the time of disposition, noting that A.T. “has remained in the
community for approximately two years since the date of his
arrest without engaging in additional criminal activity.” Given
that the level of supervision, programming, sex offender
treatment, and intervention required to rehabilitate A.T. could be
accessed in the community, the report recommended that A.T. be
declared a ward, that he be placed on global positioning system
monitoring, that he be referred for sex offender treatment, and
that he “not be in the presence of minors under the age of
eighteen outside the presence of a responsible adult, parent, or
legal guardian . . . to further increase the protection of the
public.”
A.T. opposed the probation department’s recommendations
of global positioning system monitoring, mandatory sex offender
treatment, and no unsupervised contact with minors. In support
of his position, he presented an evaluation from Dr. Ashley
Mowrey, a licensed clinical forensic psychologist, who opined that
using the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory
5
assessment, A.T.’s score corresponded with a “Very Low
Risk/Need level.” Dr. Mowrey noted that two of the factors
contributing to A.T.’s score—his underutilization of free time and
his current attitudes and accountability for his offense—were
dynamic factors that could be addressed through treatment or
other programs, which would further reduce his risk score.
A.T. also presented a supplemental evaluation dated
January 2025 from Dr. Salvador-Moses, who recommended
continued individual therapy based on A.T.’s “very low risk of
offending/reoffending” and “moderate [to] low risk of sexual
offending.” Dr. Salvador-Moses opined that the probation
department’s recommendations were “in contrast to” her own
findings “of [A.T.] not being at risk of reoffending.” In particular,
“requiring supervised contacts with his siblings, with whom he
has lived their entire lives without any indication of sexually
inappropriate behaviors with them[,] is not only excessive but
would add further trauma to [A.T.] and will also very likely be
traumatizing and confusing to his siblings.”1
In addition, A.T. presented a letter from his mother
describing A.T. as “an amazing son throughout his entire life,” a
“[v]ery loving and respectful young man,” and “the best big
brother.” She explained that she sometimes worked long hours
and she relied on A.T. to pick up his sisters from daycare and to
make them dinner. A.T.’s mother added, “[T]he concerns with
[A.T.] and his sisters has [sic] never crossed my mind.” On the
numerous occasions that she had spoken to her daughters about
potentially inappropriate behavior by A.T., “both of them denied
anything had ever happened.”
1 Dr. Salvador-Moses noted that “there is no evidence that
[A.T.] has reoffended sexually or broken any laws in the last 5
years.” However, the admitted forcible rape was committed in
November 2020, just over four years before Dr. Salvador-Moses’s
January 2025 supplemental report.
6
A.T.’s probation officer testified that, in the years since the
November 2020 forcible rape, to his knowledge A.T. had no
delinquent or criminal incidents, and he had no disciplinary or
behavioral issues while he was in high school. To the officer’s
knowledge, A.T. had complied with a protective restraining order
prohibiting him from having contact with S.R., but he did not
have personal knowledge of A.T.’s compliance. The officer was
unaware that A.T. had ever been diagnosed as a pedophile or as
having any other specific sexual disorder. The probation officer
opined that “it appeared that the risk of safety to citizens in the
community was low,” but he noted that the underlying behavior
was “very severe and grave.” The officer testified that the
probation department was concerned with A.T. being around
minors without adult supervision, including his minor siblings,
given that A.T. waited until other members of his family were not
home to commit the offense, that the other family members did
not know that anything was happening, and the victim was a
blood-related family member. The officer further explained that,
once A.T. was in sex offender treatment, his treatment provider
could recommend that a no-contact order be lifted if appropriate.
The People took the position that A.T. be committed to the
local secure youth treatment facility, which would provide
comprehensive programming and treatment while ensuring
community safety and accountability.
At the disposition hearing on July 28, 2025, the juvenile
court adjudged A.T. a ward of the court. The court declined the
People’s recommendation that A.T. be committed to a secure
youth treatment facility. Instead, the court committed A.T. to
juvenile hall for 273 days, but provided that he could serve that
time on global positioning system monitoring in lieu of juvenile
hall. The court also imposed several probation conditions,
including sex offender treatment as well as a condition that A.T.
“[s]tay [a]way from[] [y]outh under the age of 18 (to include
7
siblings except when in the presence of a responsible adult, or
legal guardian).”
DISCUSSION
A.T. asserts that the probation condition restricting
unsupervised contact with his minor sisters violates his
constitutional right to association because it is not narrowly
tailored or reasonably related to a compelling state interest. We
disagree.
When determining the disposition of a case in which a
minor has been adjudged a ward of the court, “the court shall
consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (1)
the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the
offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor’s previous
delinquent history.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.5.)2 In placing a
ward on probation, the juvenile court may issue “any and all
reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to
the end that justice may be done and the reformation and
rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.” (§ 730, former subd. (b).)3
When a probation condition infringes on a person’s constitutional
rights, the condition must “tailor those limitations to the purpose
of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally
overbroad.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890; see also
People v. Gonsalves (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1, 8 [explaining that a
probation condition that impinges on constitutional rights must
be “ ‘tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling
state interest in reformation and rehabilitation’ ”]; People v. Bray
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
3 The Legislature amended section 730, subdivision (b),
subsequent to the disposition hearing in this case. (Assem. Bill
No. 1376 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2025, ch. 575, § 9, eff.
Jan. 1, 2026.)
8
(2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 494, 503 (Bray) [“ ‘[a] limitation on the
right to associate which takes the form of a probation condition is
permissible if it is “(1) primarily designed to meet the ends of
rehabilitation and protection of the public and (2) reasonably
related to such ends” ’ ”].) The key question “ ‘ “in an overbreadth
challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate
purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the
defendant’s constitutional rights.” ’ ” (People v. Guzman (2018)
23 Cal.App.5th 53, 64.) Our review of a constitutional challenge
to a probation condition is de novo. (See In re Shaun R. (2010)
188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.)
Several courts have approved probation conditions limiting
contact with minors in cases involving sex offenses committed
against children. In People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766
(Urke), the defendant was convicted of committing a lewd and
lascivious act on a minor after he molested his sister’s friends,
who were between seven and 15 years old. (Id. at pp. 770, 775.)
The defendant challenged a condition that prohibited him from
being in the presence of a minor without a responsible adult
present who had been approved by his probation officer, with the
exception of his own siblings. (Id. at pp. 769, 774–775.) In
rejecting the defendant’s constitutional challenge, Urke reasoned
that, given the fact that the defendant had molested his sister’s
minor friends, “[t]he state has a compelling interest in protecting
children from [the] defendant,” and the condition was reasonably
related to that interest. (Id. at p. 775.)
Similarly, People v. Mills (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 171 (Mills)
upheld a condition that prohibited the defendant, who had been
convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct on a seven-year-old girl,
from associating with any minor females absent adult
supervision. (Id. at pp. 174–175, 181–182.) The court concluded
that the condition was constitutional, explaining that “the
condition has a direct relationship to the crime of which
9
defendant is convicted and while it relates to conduct that is in
itself not criminal, it forbids conduct that is reasonably related to
the prevention of future criminality.” (Id. at pp. 181–182.)
In People v. Delvalle (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 869 (Delvalle),
the court considered a probation condition ordering the
defendant, who had been convicted of trying to buy a four-year-
old child, to “ ‘stay away from any places where minor children
congregate.’ ” (Id. at pp. 878, 872.) In concluding that the
defendant’s constitutional challenge lacked merit, the court
explained that “the state has a compelling interest in the
protection of children which justifies the restriction on [the
[defendant’s] freedom of association.” (Id. at p. 879; see also
People v. Turner (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1437.)
More recently, in Bray, the defendant challenged a
condition that prohibited him from dating, socializing, or having
romantic relationships with anyone who had physical custody of
a minor child unless approved by the probation officer. (Bray,
supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at pp. 499, 501.) The defendant had been
convicted of possession of child pornography. (Id. at p. 497.) The
court held that the probation condition was not closely tailored to
the purpose of keeping the defendant from having unrestricted
contact with minors because it “prevents [the defendant] from
dating an individual with minor children or forming a romantic
relationship, even if [the defendant] will never encounter those
children.” (Id. at p. 502.) In so holding, however, Bray
emphasized that “[t]here are other more narrowly tailored
conditions that could be imposed to serve the same purpose of
protecting children, such as a requirement that [the defendant]
not associate with minors unless a responsible adult approved by
his probation officer is present.” (Id. at p. 503, citing Urke, supra,
197 Cal.App.4th 766.)
Consistent with these authorities, the state has a
compelling interest in protecting children from the risk of harm
10
posed by A.T. given the nature and severity of his misconduct.
(See Urke, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 775; Mills, supra, 81
Cal.App.3d at pp. 181–182; Delvalle, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at
p. 879.) The condition’s prohibition on unsupervised contact with
youth under the age of 18 is reasonably related to that compelling
interest. (See Urke, at p. 775; Mills, at pp. 181–182.) A.T. does
not really dispute these points, but he argues that including his
two younger sisters in the prohibition is overbroad and
unnecessary to ensure public safety in light of the lack of
evidence that he ever molested his sisters, the maturity he has
gained in the years since the offense, and his limited risk of
reoffending.
A.T. maintains that “there was no evidence of a threat to
the safety of [his] younger [sisters] from unsupervised contact.”4
His argument fails to grapple with the fact that the child victim
in this case was a member of his own family, reflecting that he
not only acted to sexually abuse a child, but was willing to violate
a familial relationship in so doing. A.T.’s cousin, S.R., reported
that he repeatedly assaulted, raped, and sodomized her for years,
beginning when she was eight years old. She related that the
assaults occurred at their grandparents’ homes, and that A.T.
sexually assaulted her in the bathroom and “when no one was in
the home.” A.T. reportedly “raped her . . . on multiple occasions
when the adults in the home would leave.” Their grandmother
4 A.T. relies on child welfare investigations conducted in
2022 and 2024 (when his sisters were approximately ages seven
and eight, then nine and 10, respectively), which deemed
allegations that he had sexually abused his sisters “[e]valuated
[o]ut and [c]losed.” His mother had also talked to his sisters on
numerous occasions and they had “denied [that] anything had
ever happened.” A.T. ignores that the victim in this case kept his
abuse secret from age eight to age 13, and four child welfare
investigations in 2022 of abuse against the victim were all
likewise “[e]valuated [o]ut and [c]losed.”
11
reported that A.T. “possibly went into the bathroom a couple of
times when the victim was using the shower,” stating that he had
to use the bathroom, and that there were other occasions when
A.T. may have taken the victim to his room while other family
members were asleep. As the trial court found, A.T.
demonstrated sophistication and deceit in that “he was able to
conceal the assaults from adults in using a ruse to enter the
bathroom while the victim was taking a shower by saying he
needed to use the bathroom.” S.R. also reported that A.T.
promised to “buy her stuff” if she cooperated. At the time of the
forcible rape to which A.T. pleaded no contest, S.R. was
approximately 11 years old.
Given his years-long abuse of his own family member, we
disagree with A.T.’s implicit suggestion that evidence of past
abuse specifically against his sisters is necessary to justify the
challenged probation condition. The severity of harm and
circumstances of A.T.’s past misconduct support the state’s
compelling interest in protecting young females, including his
other family members. A.T.’s sisters, who were approximately 11
and 10 at the time of the disposition hearing, were close in age to
the victim at the time of the offense. A.T. also shares a family
home with his sisters, as he had at times with S.R when he
abused her. Given that A.T. abused his cousin when adults in
the family were absent, the requirement of adult supervision for
contact with his minor sisters is reasonably related to the state’s
interest in ensuring safety. The condition also aids A.T.’s
rehabilitation by reducing his exposure to settings that provide
an opportunity to reoffend. By allowing him contact with his
minor siblings (and other children) with another adult present,
the condition is narrowly tailored to the state’s interests in safety
and rehabilitation and minimizes the burden on his
constitutional rights.
12
A.T. argues that evidence of his maturation and treatment
demonstrates that the requirement of supervision for contact
with his siblings is overbroad. It is true that A.T. was 16 at the
time of the forcible rape, and he was 21 by the time of the
disposition hearing. And, apart from two counts of forced sodomy
and one count of forced oral copulation alleged to have been
committed against S.R. as late as August 2021, there was no
indication that he had committed any additional unlawful acts
since the uncontested 2020 offense. The record indicates,
however, that A.T. had not received any sex offender treatment
in the intervening years; the therapy he had received was
intended to address his post-traumatic stress disorder from
having been arrested and briefly jailed in this case. Moreover,
A.T. denied ever assaulting his cousin and, according to the
probation officer, displayed a “lack of accountability and
responsibility.” As late as January 2025, when he had a
psychosexual evaluation, A.T. maintained that S.R. had made
“false allegations against him.” On this record, we disagree that
evidence of A.T.’s growth and change renders overbroad the
requirement that his contact with his minor sisters be
supervised.
A.T. also asserts that Dr. Salvador-Moses, the probation
department’s expert, and Dr. Mowrey, the defense expert, both
concluded that he had a low risk of reoffending. Dr. Mowry
assessed A.T. as having a “Very Low Risk” level with respect to
recidivism generally using the Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory assessment. But the probation department performed
the same assessment and concluded that A.T. had a medium risk
of recidivism. A.T. does not address the discrepancies between
Dr. Mowry’s assessment and the probation department’s.
With respect to sex offenses specifically, Dr. Salvador-
Moses found that A.T.’s score on the Static-99R assessment
indicated a “Moderate to Low risk of sexually re-offending.”
13
However, Dr. Salvador-Moses indicated on the assessment that
A.T. had no “[p]rior sex offenses,” even though he had been
charged with 12 other offenses, including approximately 11 that
involved abuse reportedly predating the forcible rape in 2020. In
addition, as the probation officer’s disposition report explained,
the Static-99R does not measure a number of factors that “can
raise or lower risk,” including “categories of risk such as sexual
interests, relational style, self-management, and attitudes toward
sexual offending.” Further assessments done in a mandated sex
offender treatment program, together with the Static-99R
assessment, help “determine appropriate levels of supervision
and treatment.”5 Consistent with the need for further
assessment discussed in the probation report, the trial court
indicated that it would revisit the challenged probation condition
5 Dr. Salvador-Moses concluded that A.T.’s score on the
Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised indicated a “very low risk”
of criminal reoffending generally, but her assessment of
numerous items on the checklist failed to take into account the
nature of his abuse of his young cousin. For example, in a
measurement titled “Pathological Lying,” Dr. Salvador-Moses
wrote that “[t]here is no evidence of [A.T.]. . . being deceptive,
deceitful, manipulative or dishonest.” Dr. Salvador-Moses
provided a similar assessment for “Conning and
Manipulativeness.” As for “Lack of Remorse or Guilt,” Dr.
Salvador-Moses wrote that A.T. “expressed feelings of concern
and empathy towards others” during the interview, but she did
not address his continued lack of remorse for his severe abuse of
his cousin. Similarly, she failed to address his actions toward his
cousin with respect to “Callousness and Lack of Empathy.” With
respect to “Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions,” Dr.
Salvador-Moses wrote that A.T. “does not show evidence of
denying responsibility.” Likewise, Dr. Salvador-Moses ignored
A.T.’s abuse of his cousin in discussing whether A.T. had “a
history of attempts to coerce others into sexual activity.” Dr.
Salvador-Moses’s assessments as to “Early Behavior Problems”
and “Juvenile Delinquency” similarly failed to address A.T.’s
abuse of his cousin.
14
if, once enrolled in a sex offender treatment program, A.T. is
assessed by a provider who concludes the requirement is
unnecessary. In light of the circumstances of A.T.’s misconduct
and the risk assessments’ limitations, we are unpersuaded that
the challenged condition is overbroad.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s July 28, 2025 disposition order is affirmed.
BURNS, J.
WE CONCUR:
JACKSON, P. J.
SIMONS
A174081/People v. A.T.
15