Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J190421
Richman, J.
Defendant Jordan B. timely appeals from the juvenile court’s February 20, 2007 dispositional order made pursuant to an admitted probation violation. The order continued Jordan as a ward of the court and continued a prior order committing him to an out-of-home placement. Jordan’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no potentially arguable issues. Counsel has also advised Jordan of his right to file a supplemental brief, which Jordan has not done. We have reviewed the entire record and agree with counsel’s assessment. We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in making its dispositional order, and that there is no issue warranting further briefing.
On May 24, 2006, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a juvenile petition charging Jordan, 16 years old at the time, with one felony count of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851) and one felony count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496). On June 8, 2006, Jordan admitted a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, and the juvenile court dismissed the remaining charge of receiving stolen property.
At the August 18, 2006 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court declared Jordan a ward of the court, placed him on electronic monitoring at his father’s residence, and committed him to the probation’s officer care “to be placed in a suitable foster home or private institution or group home/county facility.” As a condition of probation, the court required that Jordan submit to drug testing at the direction of his probation officer. On September 1, 2006, the juvenile court modified Jordan’s wardship by placing him on electronic monitoring at his mother’s residence.
On September 15, 2006, per the recommendation of the probation officer, the juvenile court ordered that Jordan pay $300 in restitution to the owner of the vehicle that Jordan had stolen. This was the amount of money the vehicle’s owner had paid to recover his vehicle from impound.
On September 29, 2006, the juvenile court adopted the probation department’s placement review report. This report accepted Jordan into the Family Preservation Unit (FPU) and requested that all placement reviews be vacated.
On January 11, 2007, the probation department filed a supplemental petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, alleging that Jordan had violated his probation conditions by (1) testing positive for three different types of drugs on three separate occasions and (2) bringing in urine for a drug test. At the January 22, 2007 pre-trial hearing on the supplemental petition, Jordan admitted that he had tested positive for marijuana and that he had tried to “fake out the probation officer” at one of his drug tests. The juvenile court ordered that the probation department ask Thunder Road to assess Jordan for admission into one of its drug treatment programs.
According to a later probation officer’s report, Jordan had brought in some one else’s urine for the test.
At a February 2, 2007 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court followed the recommendations of the probation department and set aside the FPU order and executed the out-of-home placement order. The probation officer’s report prepared for the February 2 hearing stated that Jordan had admitted to using marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and ecstasy in the past. The report noted that Jordan had been permitted to enroll in an out-patient drug treatment program in September 2006, but had thereafter committed the probation violations described above. The report concluded by recommending that Jordan enroll in an in-patient drug treatment program, noting that Thunder Road had interviewed Jordan and concluded that he was a good candidate for their in-patient program.
Jordan’s father requested a rehearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 252 on the ground that he did not feel that the decision to place his son in residential treatment would be appropriate at that time. At the February 20, 2007 rehearing, the court affirmed its February 2, 2007 disposition, as well as the previous judge’s findings made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 726. The court restated its conclusion that Jordan would be best served by a residential substance abuse treatment program rather than an out-patient program such as the one he was attending at the time of the February 2 hearing.
We will not disturb a dispositional order in the absence of an abuse of discretion by the juvenile court. In determining whether the evidence supports the juvenile court’s February 20, 2007 order, we examine the record at the dispositional hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law, which include rehabilitation, treatment, and the protection and safety of the public. (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395-1396.) The juvenile court here had before it evidence that Jordan had admitted to the probation officer that he had used marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and ecstasy in the past; that Jordan had violated his probation conditions while enrolled in an out-patient drug treatment program by (1) testing positive for three different types of drugs on three separate occasions and (2) bringing in urine for a drug test; that Jordan had admitted testing positive for marijuana and trying to “fake out the probation officer” at one of his drug tests; and that Thunder Road had concluded that Jordan was a good candidate for their in-patient program. Based on this evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the best option for treating and rehabilitating Jordan at that time was to commit him to an in-patient drug treatment program.
Although Jordan’s notice of appeal seeks review of the February 20, 2007 dispositional order, we have been provided with a record up through May 22, 2007. We note that our review of the record up through that date does not reveal any errors. On March 5, 2007, Jordan was placed at Thunder Road’s residential drug treatment program. Jordan only lasted there a few hours because he indicated he did not want to remain at the program. On March 7, 2007, the juvenile court ordered Jordan placed back at Thunder Road after Jordan told the court that he was willing to return to Thunder Road’s in-patient program.
DISPOSITION
The February 20, 2007 dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Haerle, Acting P.J., Lambden, J.
At placement review hearings on March 22, 2007 and April 6, 2007, Jordan argued that a residential treatment program was not appropriate for him, but the court continued to maintain the out-of-home placement order based on its conclusion that Jordan had a serious drug abuse problem.
On April 27, 2007, a hearing was held on Jordan’s petition to modify the dispositional order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 778. Jordan had been confined to Juvenile Hall while he continued to refuse to attend a residential drug treatment program. At the April 27 hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Jordan remain under the care, custody and control of his probation officer, but also ordered that he be placed in the FPU, be permitted to return to his parent’s custody pending placement in the FPU, and continue with an out-patient drug treatment program at Project Eden.
On May 8, 2007, the juvenile court ordered that Jordan be placed in the FPU, be released from Juvenile Hall to his parents pending assessment by the FPU, be drug tested once a week, and attend Project Eden’s treatment program.