Filed 9/18/26 In re J.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY E087320
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
(Super.Ct.No. J283136)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
OPINION
v.
J.M.,
Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Minor J.M. appeals from an order of the juvenile court approving his placement in
a short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP). J.M. raises multiple related issues,
but primarily contends the juvenile court misapplied the law by approving his placement
in the STRTP based on lack of available family-based foster homes. Because we agree
with respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) that the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In November 2019, then six-month-old J.M., along with his twin brother and their
six siblings, was removed from his parents’ home in response to reports of general
neglect involving squalid living conditions. As J.M.’s parents could not identify any
relative placement, J.M. and his twin were placed in a foster home together and their six
siblings were placed in other foster homes. After finding the allegations in the juvenile
dependency petition true, the court ordered family reunification services. In the
meantime, the parents became homeless.
At the contested 18-month review hearing in August 2021, the court terminated
family reunification services, mainly because the parents could not secure housing for
J.M. The court found, however, that setting a hearing on termination of parental rights
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 was not in J.M.’s best interest;1
the court instead set a permanent plan review (PPR) hearing. Eventually, a section
366.26 hearing was set for March 2023 and after multiple continuances was finally held
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise indicated.
2
in September 2024, at which time the court chose not to terminate parental rights, again
finding that a section 366.26 hearing was not in J.M.’s best interest; the court set another
PPR hearing.
In August 2025, CFS placed J.M. in an STRTP, which the court approved after a
contested placement review hearing in November 2025.
A. J.M.’s Foster Home Placements Prior to STRTP Placement
Since his removal in November 2019, J.M. and his twin were placed together in
several different foster homes. Prior to his third birthday, J.M. began engaging in
aggressive behavior, hitting others when upset. J.M. and his twin began receiving weekly
play therapy to address their aggressive behavior.
By the end of March 2023, J.M. and his twin were still “struggl[ing] with
aggression and tantrums towards each other and in school.” School personnel reported
that J.M. was exhibiting behavioral issues such as “biting, hitting, and throwing items.”
In March 2024, J.M. and his twin were placed in the foster home of Mr. and Mrs.
G. About four months later, Mrs. G. requested removal of the children “due to [J.M.]’s
temper tantrums, which include[d] hitting, biting, kicking, yelling, throwing things and
using inappropriate language.” Just prior to that request, J.M. had been aggressive with
his biological mother, hitting and scratching her during a temper tantrum.
J.M. and his twin were then placed in the foster home of Ms. B., but six days after
their placement, she requested that J.M. be removed due to his “continued temper
tantrums and destruction of personal property.” She was also concerned because J.M.
3
was physically and verbally aggressive toward his twin.
In August 2024, J.M. and his twin, now five years old, were placed in the foster
home of Mr. M. and Ms. O. About three months later, in November 2024, they were
placed with Mr. and Mrs. V. Later that same month, after reports that J.M. was
aggressive toward other children in the home, Mr. and Mrs. V. requested J.M.’s removal
“due to safety concerns.”
In December 2024, J.M. and his twin were placed in the foster home of Mr. and
Mrs. B., where it was reported that J.M. was “physically aggressive towards his [twin],
the caregiver, Mr. B., and other peers, as evidenced by hitting, kicking, [and] pushing.”
In one incident, J.M. even knocked out Mr. B.’s tooth and laughed about it. In addition to
his aggressive behavior, J.M. used vulgar, combative language.
In March 2025, during a Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting, Mr. and Mrs. B.
requested J.M.’s removal due to his physical aggression. Mrs. B. was worried about the
safety of J.M.’s twin. A few days later, J.M. was separated from his twin and moved to
the foster home of Mr. and Mrs. F. Although he was the only child in the home, J.M.
would not follow rules and “was physically and verbally aggressive towards the caregiver
in the home.” Mr. and Mrs. F. made multiple requests for J.M.’s removal due to his
aggressive behavior.
B. STRTP Placement and the Placement Review Hearing
On August 20, 2025, CFS placed J.M. in an STRTP. Prior to the placement review
hearing set for November 12, 2025, J.M.’s social worker submitted a Status Review
4
Report (the social worker’s report) with attachments, including a Qualified Individual
Assessment Summary Report (the QI assessment) completed by Raquel Tejeda, a
“qualified individual” (QI) as defined by section 16501, subdivision (l).
As will be discussed in greater detail, the social worker’s report and the QI
assessment document J.M.’s extensive behavioral issues. The QI, after identifying
numerous such issues including J.M.’s difficulty with controlling his anger, his emotional
and physical dysregulation, and his intentional misbehavior, concluded that J.M. was a
danger to others. Similarly, the social worker documented reports that J.M. was
physically aggressive and violent towards others, used profanity, and destroyed property.
This was consistent with input from the STRTP director, who reported that J.M. has a low
frustration tolerance and struggles with emotional/physical dysregulation, among other
behavioral issues. The social worker and the rest of the CFT agreed with the QI’s
recommendation that J.M. be placed in the STRTP. J.M.’s counsel filed a general
objection to his placement based solely on whether an STRTP is appropriate for a child of
J.M.’s age.
During the placement review hearing, two witnesses testified—the social worker,
and the QI, Ms. Tejeda. The social worker testified about, among other things: several
instances in which J.M. was removed from foster homes due to behavioral issues
involving aggression and violence; her efforts to locate a suitable family-based foster
home for J.M.; and the fact that foster family homes would not accept J.M. because they
were either full or they were unwilling to take him due to his behavioral issues. She
5
stated that J.M. could be placed in a family-based foster home if one were available, but
she also opined that it was in J.M.’s best interest to remain in the STRTP. The QI
unequivocally testified that her recommendation that J.M. be placed in the STRTP was
based on his behaviors and needs, not on the availability of family-based foster homes.
After the evidentiary phase of the hearing, J.M.’s counsel presented a single
argument—that J.M.’s placement in the STRTP was improper because it was based on
lack of available family-based foster homes, not based on J.M.’s needs.
C. The Juvenile Court’s Ruling and Order Approving STRTP Placement
Prior to pronouncing its order on the STRTP placement, the juvenile court
informed the parties that it read and considered the social worker’s report, the QI
assessment and attachments, and section 361.22. The court then “caution[ed] counsel
[that if it read section 361.22] narrowly and just read the statute for what it is, [J.M.’s
counsel] would be absolutely correct. But what the Court also has to do always is look at
the factors surrounding the placement of the minor, in addition to the statute.” The court
went on to acknowledge the social worker’s testimony that she would have placed J.M. in
a family-based home if one were available.
The juvenile court then discussed J.M.’s “symptoms and behavior, impulsivity,
hyperactivity, depression, oppositional behaviors, attachment difficulties, difficulty
controlling anger, emotional-physical dysregulation, poor social functioning, intentional
misbehavior, poor school behavior, academics and attendance,” finding that J.M. was “a
danger to others.” The court provided examples of such behavioral issues, including J.M.
6
being aggressive towards his twin, his caregivers, and “school staff, other peers,
evidenced by hitting, kicking, pushing, using profane language . . . exhibit[ing]
dysregulation outbursts, making threats, [and] destroying property when triggered.”
The juvenile court explained it was interpreting section 361.22 in relation to its
finding that J.M.’s “behavioral issues are such that if he were placed in a family-based
home right now the entire home would be at risk.” The court told the parties it could not
“just look at lightening in a bottle and say, okay, this is what the statute says,” but rather
that it was required “to look at the context in which [it was] placing [J.M.], other
children, [and] adults, including one that now has a knocked out tooth.
After discussing J.M.’s progress in the STRTP, the court stated its finding that the
STRTP was “the most effective place for [J.M.] to be to stabilize his very concerning
conduct.” Consistent with its oral pronouncement, the court entered a minute order
stating its finding that J.M.’s needs could not be met through placement in a family-based
setting, and that placement in the STRTP would provide the most effective and
appropriate care setting for J.M. in the least restrictive environment. The court signed
and filed its formal order stating the same.
J.M. timely appealed the juvenile court’s placement order.
DISCUSSION
J.M. contends the juvenile court misapplied controlling law by approving his
STRTP placement based on unavailability of family-based homes, rather than based on
the statutorily required determination that his needs could not be met through placement
7
in a family-based setting and that the STRTP provided the most effective and appropriate
care setting for him in the least restrictive environment. J.M. raises multiple related
arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting the court’s findings.
CFS argues the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by approving J.M.’s
placement at the STRTP and, relatedly, that the evidence supports the juvenile court’s
findings.
A. Relevant Law
A dependent child may be eligible for placement in an STRTP if they fall into one
of three categories: (1) they meet specific medical necessity criteria for mental health
services; (2) they are diagnosed with serious emotional disturbance; or (3) their needs can
only be met by the level of care provided by the STRTP. (§ 4096, subd. (e)(1)(B).)
Section 361.22 sets forth procedures by which the juvenile court must review
placements of juvenile dependents in an STRTP, as well as procedures the placing agency
must follow when seeking court approval. Prior to the STRTP placement review hearing,
the social worker is required to prepare and submit a report which includes, among other
things: (1) a QI assessment addressing the appropriateness of placement in the STRTP
based on the services and care needs of the child (§ 4096, subd. (g)); and (2) case plan
documentation required pursuant to section 16501.1, subdivision (d)(2)(C). (§ 361.22,
subd. (c)(1).)
The QI assessment must include “[e]ngagement with the child and family team
members” to assess the child’s strengths and needs, as well as “identification of the child-
8
specific short- and long-term mental and behavioral health goals and treatment needs of
the child.” (§ 4096, subd. (g)(3)(A)-(C).) If the QI determines that the child’s needs
cannot be met with family members or in another family-based setting, she must explain
why in writing (§ 4096, subd. (g)(4)(A)-(B)(i)), and, among other things, why the STRTP
“is the setting that will provide the child with the most effective and appropriate level of
care in the least restrictive environment” and “is consistent with the short- and long-term
goals for the child.” (§ 4096, subd. (g)(4)(B)(ii)-(iii).)
At the STRTP review hearing, the juvenile court must consider the information
provided by the social worker under section 361.22, subdivision (c), including the QI
assessment. (§ 361.22, subd. (e)(1).) The court is required to determine “whether the
needs of the child or nonminor dependent can be met through placement in a family-
based setting, or, if not, whether placement in a short-term residential therapeutic
program or community treatment facility, as applicable, provides the most effective and
appropriate care setting for the child or nonminor dependent in the least restrictive
environment. A shortage or lack of family homes shall not be an appropriate reason for
determining that the needs of the child cannot be met in a family-based setting.”
(§ 361.22, subd. (e)(2) (italics added).) The court also determines whether the level of
care provided by an STRTP is consistent with the child’s short- and long-term mental and
behavioral health goals and permanency plan. These determinations must be made by a
preponderance of the evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.618(g)(2).)
In addition to the determinations required under section 361.22, the juvenile court
9
must determine whether placement in an STRTP “is consistent with the child’s . . . best
interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.618(g)(1).) The court approves or disapproves the
placement, and makes a finding, in writing or on the record, of the basis for its
determinations. (§ 361.22, subd. (e)(3), (5)-(6).)
“A juvenile court’s placement orders are reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard.” (In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) The juvenile court
abuses its discretion by making a determination that is “ ‘ “ ‘arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd . . . .’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1421.) An abuse of discretion can be found when the
juvenile court “ ‘applies the wrong legal standard or its factual findings are not supported
by substantial evidence.’ ” (In re R.F. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 718, 728.) “The appellant
bears the burden of showing a [juvenile] court abused its discretion.” (F.T. v. L.J. (2011)
194 Cal.App.4th 1, 16.)
B. The Juvenile Court’s Application of Section 361.22
J.M.’s primary contention is that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it
misapplied section 361.22, subdivision (e)(2), by approving his STRTP placement based
on lack of available foster homes, rather than a finding that his needs could not be met
through placement in a family-based setting and that an STRTP would provide the most
effective and appropriate care setting for him in the least restrictive environment.
In support of his argument, J.M. relies heavily on testimony of the social worker,
which J.M. contends was the “focus[]” of the juvenile court. However, the issue to be
decided by this Court is not whether the social worker applied an improper standard, but
10
whether the juvenile court did so. (§ 361.22, subd. (e)(2) [“the court shall . . . .
[d]etermine whether the needs of the child or nonminor dependent can be met through
placement in a family-based setting” (italics added)].)
The record is clear that the juvenile court focused on whether J.M.’s needs could
be met through placement in a family-based setting. The court stated that it read and
considered the social worker’s report and all attachments, including the QI assessment.
The court then discussed, in detail, J.M.’s behavioral issues, including “impulsivity,
hyperactivity, depression, oppositional behaviors, attachment difficulties, difficulty
controlling anger, emotional-physical dysregulation, poor social functioning, intentional
misbehavior, poor school behavior, academics and attendance, and [J.M.] is a danger to
others.” Specifically citing the incident in which J.M. knocked out a caretaker’s tooth,
the court discussed its finding that J.M. is aggressive towards his brother, his caregivers,
school staff, and other children, as evidenced by physical attacks, profanity, threats, and
destruction of property. Based on these findings, the court found that the STRTP was
“the most effective place for [J.M.] to be to stabilize his very concerning conduct.”
Contrary to J.M.’s interpretation, the record does not reflect that the juvenile court
considered a shortage or lack of family homes as a reason for its determination that J.M.’s
needs could not be met in a family-based setting. Rather, the court began its analysis by
considering whether J.M.’s needs could be met in a family-based setting even if one were
available, explaining that the court “has to consider what happens if [it] put [J.M.] in a
family-based home right now.” (Italics added.)
11
Although the juvenile court discussed availability of family-based homes in the
context of the evidence and arguments presented, it expressly found that J.M.’s needs
could not be met through placement in a family-based setting. The court did not identify
a shortage or lack of family homes as a reason for its determination that J.M.’s needs
could not be met in a family-based setting. Thus, the record does not demonstrate that
the court applied the wrong legal standard or that the court made an arbitrary, capricious,
or patently absurd determination. We find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
in its application of section 361.22.
C. The QI Assessment
J.M. takes issue with the juvenile court’s reliance on the QI assessment, which he
argues does not meet the requirements set forth in section 4096, subdivision (g).
Specifically, he argues, or suggests: Ms. Tejeda is unqualified to serve as a QI because
she was not “licensed” and that she had not personally visited the STRTP or have
“personal knowledge” of its services; the QI assessment is deficient in relation to CFS’s
search for family members; and the QI assessment insufficiently documented other
issues, such as engagement with CFT members and how services provided by the STRTP
differ from those provided in a family-based home. Relatedly, J.M. argues services
previously discussed by his care team were not attempted prior to his placement in the
STRTP.
In so doing, J.M. appears to challenge the sufficiency of the QI assessment and
accordingly questions whether there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile
12
court’s finding that STRTP placement is in J.M.’s best interest.
A juvenile court abuses its discretion when its findings are not supported by
substantial evidence. (In re R.F., supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 728.) Under the substantial
evidence test, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order,
drawing every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the judgment.
[Citation.] An appellate court does not reweigh the evidence.” (In re Marina S.
(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 165; In re Michael G. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 589
[“The substantial evidence standard of review is generally considered the most difficult
standard of review to meet, as it should be, because it is not the function of the reviewing
court to determine the facts”].)
Although not argued by CFS, there is no indication that J.M. made any of these
arguments or raised any of these objections to the juvenile court regarding the sufficiency
of the QI assessment or Ms. Tejeda’s qualifications. The arguments are therefore
forfeited. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [listing numerous
applications of the waiver doctrine in dependency proceedings, and applying the doctrine
to appellant’s failure “to object in the juvenile court to the lack of a preliminary
assessment of the prospective guardian”]; cf., In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495,
1508 [“courts have repeatedly held that a party’s failure to object forfeits appellate review
of the adequacy of—or the failure to prepare—mandatory assessment reports in juvenile
proceedings”].)
Additionally, some of the issues addressed by CFS in its respondent’s brief—such
13
as Ms. Tejeda’s qualification to serve as QI, and placement in a small family home2—are
not argued in J.M.’s reply brief, which indicates an implicit concession of those issues.
(Ross v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 667, 681.) As will be discussed, even if
the arguments had not been abandoned or forfeited, reversal of the juvenile court’s order
is not warranted here.
1. Qualification of the QI
Contrary to the suggestion in his opening brief, J.M. has not shown that Ms.
Tejeda was unqualified to serve as a QI. A QI is defined, in relevant part, as “a trained
professional or licensed clinician responsible for conducting the determination described
in subdivision (g) of Section 4096 and determining the most effective and appropriate
placement for a child.” (§16501, subd. (l) (italics added).) There is no requirement that a
QI be licensed. The record demonstrates here that Ms. Tejeda is a trained professional as
a registered associate marriage and family therapist with a master’s degree and has
experience conducting dozens of QI assessments. There is also no requirement that a QI
personally visit an STRTP facility or have “personal knowledge” of its services, and J.M.
2 J.M. may be abandoning the “small family home” issue. The social worker
testified that she attempted to have J.M. placed in a “small family home,” but such
placement was not possible because it required that he first be denied placement in a
group home “because of his high needs.” In his opening brief, J.M. argues the juvenile
court abused its discretion by delegating its authority to the STRTP to decide whether
J.M. should be placed in a small family home. As CFS correctly points out, a “small
family home” is defined as a “residential facility, in the licensee’s family residence, that
provides 24-hour care for six or fewer foster children who have mental disorders or
developmental or physical disabilities and who require special care and supervision as a
result of their disabilities.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1502, subd. (a)(6).) J.M. cites no
evidence or authority suggesting he qualified for placement in a small family home. In
fact, he appears to concede the issue in his reply brief.
14
does not cite any authority establishing such a requirement. Nevertheless, the record
indicates that Ms. Tejeda spoke to the STRTP therapist and program director regarding
services J.M. received.
2. Differences in Services Provided
J.M. argues the QI failed to document how the services provided by the STRTP
were different than those provided in a family-based home. That requirement is set forth
in section 4096, subdivision (g)(4)(B). The QI assessment includes a section captioned
“Barriers to Family-Based Settings,” under which Ms. Tejeda noted that since
“September 2023, [J.M.] has participated in wraparound services and other intensive
mental health services; however, his ongoing needs and challenges have made it difficult
for him to sustain stability in a foster home placement.” Based on his mental health
needs relating to anger, aggression and numerous other symptoms and behaviors, she
noted that “he would benefit from a structured setting, 24/7 supervision and support and
specialty intensive mental health services.” She later testified that the purpose of placing
him in the STRTP was to “help to address and stabilize the behaviors that essentially led
to the recommendation of placement in an STRTP.” The implication in these statements
is that the services provided by the STRTP involve more comprehensive supervision and
support and specialty intensive mental health services addressing J.M.’s anger and
aggressive behavior, which were not provided in the family-based homes. The court
appeared to agree when it stated that J.M.’s “behavioral issues are such that if he were
placed in a family-based home right now the entire home would be at risk.”
15
3. CFS’s Search for Family Members
J.M. also argues the QI assessment failed to establish whether his assessed needs
could be met with family members or in another family-based setting, as required by
section 4096, subdivision (g)(4), because CFS did not conduct a “family available”
search. The argument assumes, with no factual support, that if CFS were able to locate
additional family members, the juvenile court might have ruled differently. But as
discussed, the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that J.M.’s needs could
not be met in a family-based home, regardless of its availability.
At the time of J.M.’s initial detention in 2019, J.M.’s parents completed family
find forms, but they failed to identify any relatives with which J.M. could be placed.
Over the years, the juvenile court consistently made findings that CFS exercised due
diligence to locate relatives with which J.M. could be placed, including on September 25,
2024; March 21, 2025; and at the STRTP review hearing on September 19, 2025. There
is no indication that J.M. ever objected to the juvenile court’s findings regarding the
sufficiency of CFS’s search for additional family members prior to his placement in the
STRTP or at the STRTP review hearing. J.M.’s counsel never argued that the juvenile
court should disapprove of his placement in the STRTP because CFS did not sufficiently
search for family members.
4. Engagement with CFT Members
Citing the requirement that the QI assessment include “[e]ngagement with the
child and family team members” (§ 4096, subd. (g)(3)(A)), J.M. also argues it “does not
16
appear that [the wraparound] team were identified” or “consulted,” and that the QI
assessment failed to specify what services were provided to J.M. and whether those
services could be provided in a family-based home. The QI assessment establishes that
Ms. Tejeda engaged with CFT members involved in J.M.’s prior and current placement,
and it identifies the CFT members interviewed to include the social services worker, an
STRTP therapist, the STRTP program director, and J.M.’s previous therapist at Pacific
Clinics, Shay McMillen. The social worker’s report states that prior to his placement at
the STRTP, J.M. received wraparound services twice per week through Pacific Clinics.
Notably, J.M.’s counsel specifically asked the social worker on direct examination about
“Shay McMill[e]n, [J.M.]’s prior therapist,” and the social worker identified McMillen as
“the facilitator for wraparound.” J.M.’s counsel then had “no further questions,”
including any questions about identification of members of the wraparound team. There
is no indication in the record that J.M.’s counsel ever raised any objection or contention
in the juvenile court proceeding regarding incomplete identification of the wraparound
team in the QI assessment or that any such lack of identification prejudiced J.M.
5. Timing of Services Provided to J.M.
J.M. argues there is no indication that services identified seven months prior to his
placement in the STRTP, such as applied behavior analysis therapy, therapeutic
behavioral services, and a referral for an individualized education program (IEP)
assessment, were attempted prior to his placement in the STRTP. But even assuming
J.M. should have received the treatments discussed by his wraparound team prior to his
17
placement in the STRTP, J.M. fails to explain how that alters the analysis. J.M. concedes
that he has been “receiving services consistently” since his placement in the STRTP and
that “[m]oving into [multiple] different [foster homes] interrupted his services and
schooling.” These facts demonstrate that J.M.’s constant shuffling between foster homes
impeded his ability to obtain consistent services, which he now receives in the STRTP.
D. Juvenile Court’s Statements Regarding J.M.’s Improvement
Finally, J.M. argues the juvenile court’s belief that he was improving in the STRTP
was “misguided” and did not provide evidence that the STRTP was the most effective and
appropriate setting in the least restrictive environment. But the facts cited by the juvenile
court are relevant and have evidentiary support. The court stated that J.M. was “thriving”
in school. That is consistent with the testimony of the social worker that J.M.’s school
behavior had improved since his placement in the STRTP. The court also noted that
J.M.’s behavior was beginning to stabilize, which is supported by the record.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the STRTP
was the most effective and appropriate setting in the least restrictive environment.
Appellant has not shown that the juvenile court misapplied the law or made a
determination that was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
18
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order placing J.M. in the STRTP is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
LEE
J.
We concur:
MCKINSTER
Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL
J.
19