In re C.S.

















Filed 10/14/10 In re C.S. CA4/3











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

In re C.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.S., Defendant and Appellant.	G042400 (Super. Ct. No. DL033874) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Kristin A. Erickson,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,
Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton,
Bradley A. Weinreb and Gary Brozio, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

This case involves a
situation in which a minor who is a dependent of the juvenile court under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 is charged with crimes that makes him
eligible for a wardship under section 602 of that code.[1] In that situation, section 241.1 contemplates
that certain procedures be followed to ascertain which status, dependency or
wardship, is appropriate for the minor.
C.S., the minor herein, contends those procedures were not followed in
his case, and therefore he was improperly made a ward of the court. He also contends the procedures respecting the
deferred entry of judgment program were erroneously ignored. While we do not believe these alleged
procedural deficiencies are cause for reversal, we do agree with minor that
some of the conditions of his probation must be modified to comport with due process. We will modify those conditions accordingly
and affirm the judgment in all other respects.


FACTS

Minor is currently 16
years old. Although he has been a decent
student and managed to stay out of trouble during the bulk of his youth, his
family life has not been ideal. His
mother and father have an extensive history of substance abuse, and between
2005 and 2007, his family, which includes three younger siblings, was the
subject of seven child abuse investigations. The investigations revealed a pattern of
drinking and domestic violence by minor's parents and filthy living conditions
at the family dwelling. Following a
drunken spree by his parents in December 2007, minor and his siblings were
detained by social services. Minor was
placed with his uncle and declared a dependent of the court under section
300. The juvenile court also established
a reunification plan for his family.

About a year later, in
November 2008, the present case arose.
Minor, then age 14, was watching television in a bedroom with his
five-year-old cousin D.C. when D.C.'s mother looked into the room. Although minor pulled his shirt over his
crotch area, she could tell he had an erection.
Concerned about this, she returned to the room moments later, and this
time, she saw D.C. touching minor's crotch over his clothes. D.C. claimed minor had asked him to touch his
â€