Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-01168
STEIN, J.
Defendant, a minor, appeals from a dispositional order removing her from her parents’ custody and committing her to a program such as that offered by the Chris Adams Girls Center. She also appeals from an order denying her request to modify the disposition. The appeals have been consolidated.
Background
In April 2006, defendant, a 17-year-old high school student in Contra Costa County, called another student (the victim), who apparently had kissed defendant’s ex-boyfriend, telling the victim she wanted to meet her after class. The victim left class and went to her car, where she saw defendant and some other students. The victim attempted to avoid defendant, but defendant prevented her from leaving, pulling her out of the car. Defendant and the victim fell to the ground, where defendant straddled the victim, striking her in the face and head, causing her to suffer a minor concussion. Police were called. They cited defendant with battery on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 243.2, subd. (a)), releasing her to her mother. The police later contacted the victim, who told them defendant had left two voice mail messages for her during the week before the attack. The police heard and transcribed the voice mail messages, which were threatening and laced with obscenities. They therefore also cited defendant for misdemeanor telephone harassment (Pen. Code, § 653m, subd. (a)). Defendant was sent to police diversion, but after failing to appear for her first diversion meeting and failing to respond to telephone calls, she was found to be unqualified for diversion and was referred to probation.
In June 2006, defendant took checks from her mother’s checkbook, cashed some of them and attempted to cash others by forging her mother’s name to them. She was caught when the manager at a check cashing store in San Joaquin County became suspicious and called defendant’s mother. Defendant was detained by the police, who cited her for check forgery and identification theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (d); 530.5, subd. (a).) In August, officers responded to a report of a verbal altercation between defendant and her mother. Defendant’s mother told them defendant had stolen and cashed checks from her the previous week. She stated, further, defendant had been stealing from her for about a year, estimating she had taken over $3,000. Defendant was cited for forgery (Pen. Code, § 470).
As a result of these reports, petitions were filed against defendant in San Joaquin County—for defendant’s check cashing activities, and Contra Costa County—for her conduct in connection with the schoolmate. On September 12, 2006, in San Joaquin County, defendant admitted one count of forgery, which the court had amended from a felony to a misdemeanor. The case then was transferred for disposition to Contra Costa County, where the minor and her parents reside. Defendant was placed on home supervision pending a hearing. A home supervision violation report was filed on November 8, 2006, reporting defendant’s parents were refusing to house defendant and were asking that she be ordered to attend therapy because of her violent behavior. Defendant then was taken to juvenile hall, where she tested positive for marijuana. Her probation officer requested defendant be upgraded to electronic monitoring, citing defendant’s disrespectful conduct to the officer during an appointment. The juvenile court returned defendant to her parents’ home, but placed her on electronic monitoring. The probation report also cited defendant for failing to attend a GED program. A report filed on December 13, 2006, reprimanded her for failing to report to a random test called for on December 11, 2006.
On December 14, 2006, defendant entered a plea of no contest to misdemeanor battery on school property, on the understanding the other counts would be dismissed. The court accepted the plea after pointing out to defendant that the existing forgery charge exposed her to a maximum period of confinement of 16 months, warning defendant of the consequences of her contemplated plea, making sure defendant’s attorney concurred with the plea and assuring itself the plea was voluntary. It was explained at that time that defendant had been unable to test on December 12 because she was both working and taking her GED exam that day, and did not have a window of time for testing. She had called to explain the situation and had offered to test the following morning. The court took defendant off home monitoring, but kept her on home supervision. The matter was put over until January 4, 2007, for disposition.
The dispositional report noted defendant’s anger issues. The social worker reported that in addition to defendant’s criminal acts, she had run away from home on two occasions, staying away for two to three weeks at a time. Defendant had begun drinking and smoking marijuana at the age of 15, drinking alcohol approximately once a month and using marijuana daily, with the last date of her use being November 4, 2006. She had tested negative for drugs on December 19, 2006. Defendant got into an argument with her mother on December 21, 2006, packed her bags and left home. A report of home supervision violation was made, but later dismissed. The caseworker reported defendant continued to be extremely disrespectful and exhibited a sense of self entitlement. The worker did not recommend out-of-home placement, but asserted, “The subject is immature, spoiled, aggressive, and emotionally unstable. She appears to feel entitled to take whatever she wants no matter who she hurts. Her family is not helping the situation by not holding her accountable and responsible for her behavior.”
After the report was prepared, but before the January 4, 2007 hearing, defendant again violated home supervision, testing positive for marijuana on December 29, 2006. It also was reported defendant had failed to call the home service office on two occasions and was unavailable on a third occasion, later stating her phone was off the hook. Defendant’s mother testified the report was incorrect, stating she or the defendant’s aunt had been present and heard defendant make the required calls to home supervision. Defendant’s mother, while acknowledging defendant’s immaturity, also testified defendant was making positive strides in her life. The deputy district attorney recommended that, based on the new violations, defendant be ordered to spend the weekend in juvenile hall. The court ordered that defendant be tested. Defendant tested positive for marijuana. The court then stated it was not going to follow the recommendations in the social report. It noted defendant’s conduct and language in connection with the battery, stating it had observed no remorse. The court was unhappy with defendant’s use of marijuana, wondering aloud where her parents were when the defendant was using daily. It pointed out defendant had used marijuana while waiting for disposition.
The court then adjudged defendant a ward of the court, ruled defendant’s welfare required she be removed from her parents’ home and placed in a facility such as Chris Adams Girls Center, noting the center has a strong therapeutic program where defendant could get help controlling her anger and drug usage. The court explained the program would address defendant’s problems and needs and was a place where defendant could change if she truly was motivated to change, pointing out defendant could get out early if she obtained control over her problems. The court also ordered restitution to the victim of the battery, additional drug testing and various other conditions of probation. It ordered defendants’ parents to attend counseling. Defendant was placed in Chris Adams Girls Center a week later.
On March 5, 2007, defendant filed her appeal from the dispositional order. On March 27, defendant filed a petition seeking modification of the dispositional order, claiming changed circumstances. The court denied the petition, and defendant filed her appeal from that decision on April 27, 2007.
Discussion
I.
Dispositional Order
As defendant recognizes, we will reverse a dispositional order only for abuse of discretion, and in determining whether the juvenile court has abused its discretion, we indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1320; In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53; In re Todd W. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 408, 416.)
There was no abuse of discretion here. There is no requirement that the juvenile court adopt the recommendations of the probation department or the deputy district attorney. That defendant continued to use drugs while under home supervision, and used them pending the dispositional order, provided ample reason for concluding she had not reformed and was unable to reform while in her parents’ custody. Defendant had been tried on diversion, home supervision and home supervision with electronic monitoring, and although she showed signs of improvement, her issues remained unresolved. Even if it is assumed defendant made all required calls to probation, she had used marijuana at least once within the previous month, testing positive on December 29, and again on the date of the hearing, indicating recent usage. She also had violated home supervision on December 21 by leaving home without permission after an angry confrontation with her mother. The evidence is perfectly consistent with the conclusion the dynamics within defendant’s home were interfering with her ability to appreciate the gravity of her conduct and to change her outlook and behavior. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (a)(3) [the welfare of the minor requires that custody be taken from the minor’s parent or guardian].) In short, there was a valid basis for ordering her in out-of-home placement.
Defendant cites Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, which provides, in subdivision (a), that the purpose of the juvenile law is “to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor’s family ties whenever possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her parents only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and protection of the public.” Defendant’s conduct in connection with the battery amply demonstrated that the public safety required that defendant reform. Her problems with her mother demonstrated that the family ties were in need of strengthening. Her continuing use of drugs and acting out while in the family home supported the conclusion there was a need to remove her from the custody of her parents. It is of no significance that at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, and before the December violations, the court urged defendant to enroll in college, indicating a belief defendant would be able to attend college in the near future. That belief likely would have been justified had defendant stayed clean, controlled her anger and avoided violating home supervision prior to the dispositional hearing. But she did not.
In sum, the dispositional order was not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed.
II.
Petition for Modification
While defendant has appealed from the denial of her petition for a change in disposition, she directs no arguments towards that order and we do not find the denial to have been an abuse of discretion. Defendant’s petition and supporting documentation strongly indicates the referral to Chris Adams Girls Center was having a positive effect, and defendant also submitted evidence her parents had enrolled in and completed parenting classes and therefore were better able to respond to defendant’s issues. The evidence accordingly suggests circumstances were in the process of changing, but we can find no abuse of discretion in the decision to continue defendant in the program until it was clear the positive changes were permanent.
Conclusion
The dispositional order is affirmed. The order denying defendant’s petition for modification is affirmed.
We concur: MARCHIANO, P. J., SWAGER, J.