In re C.R.
Filed 7/12/13 In re C.R. CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
EIGHT
In re C.R., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B246282
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. KJ37025)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Charles W. McCoy, Judge. Affirmed.
James M.
Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * * * *
Minor C.R. appeals from an order
granting the probation department’s petition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 778
name="_ftnref1" title="">
to place C.R. in a suitable placement.
We appointed appellate counsel to represent her. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which no
issues were raised. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The brief included a declaration from counsel
that he reviewed the record and advised C.R. of her right, under
court.
The procedural history and facts
are as follows: On January 30, 2012, a petition was filed under
section 602, alleging C.R. had engaged in prostitution (Pen. Code, § 647, subd.
(b)). On March 5, 2012, C.R. admitted the petition and was placed
at home on probation for six months.
A subsequent section 602 petition
was filed on April 5, 2012,
alleging prostitution (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (b)) and loitering to commit
prostitution (Pen. Code, § 653.22, subd. (a)).
C.R. denied the allegations, and the matter was tried to the court. The trial court sustained the petition and
ordered C.R. to be suitably placed.
On August 7, 2012, a subsequent petition
was filed under section 777, alleging C.R. had violated the terms of her
probation by leaving her placement without permission (C.R. had gone
AWOL). On August 8, 2012, C.R. admitted the petition, and was placed
in a three-month Camp-Community Placement Program.
The
probation officer’s reports documented C.R.’s progress during her camp
placement. She generally did well at
camp. Initially, C.R. told her probation
officer she would like to return home to her mother following camp. However, a subsequent report from C.R.’s
therapist revealed C.R. had concerns about returning home. Specifically, she worried she “may return to
behaviors she was incarcerated for based on negative environmental influences
[at home].†The probation department’s
60-day camp progress report indicated the probation officer’s contacts with
mother had been confrontational. “Mother
is very argumentative and says she will refuse services†for C.R. Nevertheless, the report recommended C.R.
return home to mother upon completion of her camp program.
On November
27, 2012, the probation department filed a petition under section 778 to
modify an earlier placement order, alleging C.R. was scheduled to be released
to mother, but mother refused mental health services for C.R., would not
enforce the conditions of C.R.’s probation, did not provide the probation
department with access to her home to conduct an evaluation, and intended to
home school C.R. Because mother denied
C.R. needed any services, the petition alleged it would not be in C.R.’s best
interests to be returned to mother.
Accordingly, the probation department recommended C.R. be suitably
placed.
At the
hearing on the petition, Supervising Probation Officer Keith Larsen testified
he was assigned to investigate whether C.R. should be released to mother
following her camp program. When he went
to mother’s home, mother was uncooperative and stated she did not “want any
[after care or wrap-around] services in the home.†Also, C.R. had expressed some concerns about
returning home, believing she may return to prostitution. According to Larsen, a suitable placement
would be in C.R.’s best interests because she could “continue to receive mental
health services†and could receive services aimed at children who had been the
victims of sexual exploitation. The
probation department’s previous recommendation that C.R. be returned to mother
was a made by mistake; the “camp probation officer initially wanted to
recommend suitable placement.â€
Deputy Probation Officer
Victor Sandoval testified he attempted to conduct a home visit at mother’s
house, and no one answered the door.
Mother later called Sandoval and told him she was home when he visited,
but would not be disturbed during school hours (she home schools her son). At a meeting between mother, Larsen,
Ms. Anderson (another probation officer), and Sandoval, mother said she
did not want wrap-around services for C.R. because she did not “want an extra
pair of eyes in [her] house.†Also,
mother did not participate in a Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) assessment to
devise a case plan for C.R. Mother
intended to home school C.R.
Mother
testified she only learned of the MDT assessment minutes before it started and
attempted to participate by phone, but the line was busy. Mother admitted she was skeptical about
wrap-around services because they were not properly explained to her. She now believes the services would benefit
C.R. She would like to home school C.R.,
as she already home schools her son. She
would like C.R. to come home, and is willing to cooperate with the probation
department.
The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered
C.R. to be suitably placed. The court declared a maximum term of
confinement of eight months, with credit given for 185 days.
We have examined
the entire record, consisting of one volume of clerk’s transcript and one
volume of reporter’s transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully
complied with his responsibilities and that no
106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the order below.
The order is affirmed.
GRIMES,
J.
We concur:
RUBIN,
Acting P. J.
FLIER,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">
undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
