Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Napa County Super. Ct. No. JV14661
Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Thirteen-year-old Tania F. appeals from a dispositional order of the Napa County Juvenile Court placing her in a residential treatment program after finding she violated the conditions of her probation. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Having done so, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the juvenile court’s order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On February 27, 2006, an initial wardship petition was filed alleging appellant committed petty theft on June 24, 2005. According to a probation report, a probation officer made numerous attempts to meet with appellant’s parents but the parents were not cooperative, and it appeared they were not interested in being involved in the court process. The report indicated that appellant was attending school and was receiving satisfactory grades in all subjects, and that informal probation was appropriate. The juvenile court followed the recommendation and placed appellant on informal probation.
A probation report prepared for the six month review hearing stated that appellant was not doing well on informal probation. She had not submitted a letter of apology as ordered and had not attended any counseling sessions. Three dots tattooed on to her left hand indicated membership in or association with the Sureno street gang. The juvenile court continued appellant’s informal probation for six months.
On December 22, 2006, an amended initial wardship petition was filed, alleging, in addition to the petty theft count, a second count for battery. Appellant admitted the petty theft count and the court revoked informal probation. Upon motion of the district attorney, the court dismissed the second count.
According to the probation department’s dispositional report of February 28, 2007, appellant’s father described appellant’s behavior as “normal teenage behavior.” Appellant had been found with gang graffiti in her backpack and admitted she was affiliated with the Sureno street gang. The probation department stated that based on the two referrals to probation, increasing gang influence, school truancy and poor grades, appellant should be declared a ward of the court. The court followed the recommendation and declared appellant a ward of the court. The terms of probation required appellant to, among other things, notify the probation department 48 hours before any change of address, attend school regularly, and not use or possess alcohol or marijuana.
On June 7, 2007, the probation department learned that appellant moved but had not informed probation of her new address. Appellant had also been truant on several occasions, and three 32-ounce bottles of beer were found in her bedroom. The probation officer’s report expressed serious concern for appellant’s well being and ability to follow the conditions of probation. The probation officer stated: “While at face value the alleged violation does not appear to be very serious, when considering the minor’s history and age, these violations are cause for serious concern. . . . To be cutting school and drinking alcohol at 12 years of age shows a level of sophistication not commonly seen in children that young.” In addition, the alcohol was found in an open backpack that the parents should have been able to see. The fact that appellant’s parents did not see it, or that appellant felt no great need to hide it from them, brought into question the effectiveness of the parents’ supervision. At a jurisdictional hearing, appellant admitted to possessing alcohol and failing to notify the probation department of her change of address.
According to a June 27, 2007 dispositional report, appellant admitted to her probation officer that she had faked illnesses and had forged her father’s signature on absence notes in order to avoid having to go to school. A “student study team” had been formed at school to support appellant with her failing grades, excessive tardies and falsified absence notes, but school staff expressed frustration with appellant’s failure to follow through. The probation officer warned that out-of-home placement may be necessary if things did not improve. The report recommended that appellant be continued as a ward of the court. The court adopted the recommendation and continued formal probation.
On July 31, 2007, two Napa Special Investigations Bureau officers observed appellant and two of her older sisters talking to a man by a taco truck. The officers arrested the man for an alleged violation of possession of methamphetamines and searched appellant and her sisters. Appellant’s cell phone was confiscated as it contained “questionable images and text messages.” When the probation officer investigated the cell phone, he found numerous photos of appellant displaying gang signs and associating with known Sureno gang members, including a man who was “wanted for questioning in a violent gang incident.” There was also a picture of a person holding a quart size bag of what appeared to be marijuana. After being read her Miranda rights, appellant did not offer any explanation for her actions but said she was “stupid to have gotten caught.” When questioned about his daughters’ behavior, appellant’s father stated he heard that appellant and his other daughters had been getting drunk, but had never witnessed them coming home drunk. When shown the pictures of appellant with gang members, he stated he recalled “kicking the gang members out of the house.”
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
The probation department noted that a report from appellant’s school indicated she had “missed 220 days of school in her school career.” Appellant refused to attend homework clinics. Her father admitted he knew about the falsified absence notes and stated that at times, he also signed notes, knowing they contained false information. One of appellant’s sisters was also a ward of the court, and appellant’s brother had recently been stabbed by a rival gang member. A police report indicated that on one occasion, a rival gang member had thrown a bottle through appellant’s family’s home window, sending shattered glass throughout the living room and into a crib in which a younger sibling slept. A “calls for service” report for appellant’s last three addresses showed that 29 calls had been made in one year for reports regarding runaway minors, warrant arrests, welfare checks, vandalism, and probation searches. The probation department expressed concern about appellant’s safety and considered several placement options that would allow appellant to sever ties with gangs in Napa. It determined that an out-of-home placement in a residential treatment program was appropriate, given that appellant and her family had not been amenable to probation services, and that appellant’s parents did not have the skills necessary to establish a safe, structured home for appellant or her siblings.
The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. Defense counsel objected to the recommended out-of-home placement and suggested participation in a program that would not require appellant to be removed from her home. The district attorney stated that appellant was “in very serious jeopardy” in her current home and that residential treatment would be especially helpful for her, given her young age, because “there is still time hopefully to help her.” Appellant’s parents stated they did not want appellant to be removed from their home. They stated they were doing a better job of making sure appellant attended school and no longer allowed gang members in their home.
The probation officer testified regarding the difficulties of working with appellant’s family, and about the parents’ inability to keep their children out of trouble. The officer noted that in the years she had worked with the family, the parents failed to attend programs and had not attended any counseling sessions to which they had been referred. The juvenile court adopted most of the recommendations set forth in the dispositional report and ordered that appellant be placed in a residential treatment program. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appellant’s counsel has informed appellant of her right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief.
Appellant’s counsel discovered no issues meriting argument, but suggests we might consider whether the juvenile court’s decision to order appellant into an out-of-home placement was proper, in light of the fact that appellant was “11-years old at the time of the original offense, . . . had only two probation violations, and . . . her parents spoke at the dispositional hearing regarding their efforts to keep appellant out of trouble.”
In making a dispositional order, the juvenile 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.) The juvenile court has broad discretion in imposing disposition, and its order may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 727, subd. (a), 730, subd. (a), 731; In re Todd W. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 408, 416.) “ ‘We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them.’ ” (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1330.) It is not our role to determine what we believe to be the most appropriate placement for a minor; that determination is one for the juvenile court. (In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1135.) “An appellate court will not lightly substitute its decision for that rendered by the juvenile court . . . and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them.” (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395.)
Here, the juvenile court acted within its discretion in ordering out-of-home placement for appellant. As the court recognized, appellant had “gotten into a lot of trouble.” She had been charged with petty theft and battery and had failed to follow many of the conditions of her probation. She was doing poorly in school and was falsifying absence notes, at times with the consent or cooperation of her father. She admitted she was affiliated with a gang, and photographs showed her spending time with known gang members. She was in possession of alcohol and associated with a man who was arrested for possession of methamphetamines. Appellant was young, but she was surrounded by older individuals who did not discourage her from engaging in delinquent activity. Further, her history revealed a pattern of progressively serious delinquent activity, and a probation officer expressed concern about the “level of sophistication [in appellant’s acts that were] not commonly seen in children that young.”
Although appellant’s parents stated they were encouraging appellant to attend school and were no longer allowing gang members in their house, the court correctly noted that the family had not utilized any of the services that had been provided to them. In light of the family’s failure to participate in any sessions or programs, it was unlikely the parents would provide appellant with guidance in complying with the court’s orders. (See In re Samuel B (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1105 [the fact that the minor resides at a home where the parents are unable to guide the minor in compliance with the court’s order is a relevant factor to be considered in determining the appropriate placement], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Hernandez (1988) 46 Cal.3d 194, 206, fn. 14.) There was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that a more structured environment away from home was necessary for appellant to have a chance at “getting back on the right path because all the other things that have been tried thus far just have not worked.”
In reaching its decision, the juvenile court also took into consideration the probation report, which thoroughly explained why out-of-home placement was necessary. The report stated: “It is clearly evident the minor’s needs exceed the resources available for continued placement in the home of her parents. It is imperative the Court intervene on the minor’s behalf to provide her with a structured, nurturing, homelike setting. In light of the minor’s delinquent history, lack of a safe home environment, absence of parental guidance, gang entrenchment, and drug connections, it appears appropriate at this time for the minor to be committed to a residential treatment program. It is this officer’s hope that the minor can benefit from the opportunity to thrive in a structured, supervised environment with consequences for her actions. It is during the time the minor is unsupervised, or supervised by her older siblings and parents that the level of risk escalates. The minor’s propensity to re-offend exponentially increases the longer she remains connected to the negative influences surrounding her; this includes the adult gang members and adult drug traffickers. . . . Also extremely important, the residential treatment program will be able to provide family counseling to successfully assist the minor and her family in eventual reunification.”
Placement in a residential treatment program was appropriate under the circumstances after probation services had failed. Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that placement.
Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and appeared at every hearing. We have reviewed the “entire record in this case and have found no arguable issues therein.” (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
Disposition
The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Pollak, J.