Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. JW-06-6879
Marchiano, P.J.
D.H. appeals a dispositional order of the San Francisco City and County Juvenile Court, declaring him a ward of that court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He claims the court erred in committing him to an out-of-home placement. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Background
On November 20, 2006, an employee of Gloria R. Davis Middle School asked D.H., then 12 years of age, to remove his jacket before entering his classroom, as required by the school’s dress code. The minor refused and began cursing angrily while banging lockers with his fists. He “bull rushed” an employee who was attempting to block his entrance into the classroom. The minor told another employee he was going to “come back strapped,” by which she believed he meant to return with a gun. She said the minor was a “ ‘disturbed child with many mental issues,’ ” and she found his threat credible. School staff summoned San Francisco police, who took the minor into custody.
The district attorney initiated this proceeding on the following day, filing a petition to establish the minor as a ward of the court pursuant to section 602. The petition charged the minor with violations of Penal Code sections 71 (threatening a school employee) and 243.6 (battery upon a school employee). On November 22, 2006, the juvenile court ordered the minor’s detention at home.
On February 9, 2007, the juvenile court granted the minor’s request for a voluntary program of home supervision pursuant to section 654. Among other things, this informal probation called for the minor to attend school with no truancy or tardiness, obey a 6 p.m. curfew, use no drugs or alcohol, and engage in Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and anger management classes.
In early April 2007, the minor’s probation officer (PO) reported that the minor had a prescription for a mood stabilizer to address his “volatile” aggressive behavior. However, L.H. (Mother) was taking no steps to ensure the minor was taking the medication. The minor and his parents had missed a number of appointments for MST, and the five-month maximum period for these intensive services was about to lapse. The minor also had failed to attend his anger management class regularly. After being placed in the Special Day Class at Herbert Hoover Middle School, the minor continued acting out in school in a “highly aggressive manner,” physically intimidating a petite teacher’s aide. He had been twice suspended, first for slapping the teacher’s aide on the back and ripping a clipboard from her hands, and then for taking a wallet and a portable video game device from another student while forcibly holding him by his backpack. On April 3, the juvenile court revoked the minor’s informal probation.
The record indicates the minor was tall and heavy for his age.
At the hearing on April 3, 2007, the juvenile court suggested that the minor might benefit from an out-of-home placement due to the escalation of his negative behaviors at school. This evidently motivated the minor for a time. His behavior at school improved, he began to attend his anger management class more regularly, and he and his parents participated more actively in the remaining six weeks of MST. Thus, in early July 2007, the minor—now 13 years of age—sought a reinstatement of informal probation under section 654. On July 24, the court granted this request.
The minor’s improved behavior did not extend into the following school year. By late September 2007, he had been twice handcuffed and twice suspended for threatening behavior. After the second incident, one teacher requested that police charges be brought. The minor was also failing to attend individual therapy sessions to which he had been referred that month. As a result of these problems, the minor was transferred from Herbert Hoover Middle School to Civic Center Secondary School where he continued to exhibit intimidating and bullying behavior, regularly arriving late and refusing to do his work. In December 2007, he cut school and violated curfew. On December 10, the PO requested a hearing regarding revocation of the minor’s informal probation.
Meanwhile, the school district had given the minor a nonpublic school designation, and had arranged for him to be assessed for admission at RISE (Research in Special Education) Institute. The minor failed to complete the assessment, however. In January 2008, the PO noted that Mother seemed to be “loosing control” of the minor yet was “in denial about the situation.” On January 10, the juvenile court again revoked the minor’s voluntary probation and ordered his temporary detention. When officers took him into custody on this date, he struggled against them, refused to comply with directives, and “spew[ed] violent threats.” The officers placed him in a holding cell until he calmed down. Later, he asked a staff physician “if he could be put back on the medication he had taken to control his angry outbursts in the past.”
The minor was apparently referring to the mood stabilizer he received through MST services. This prescription lapsed when MST services ended. Although the minor’s PO subsequently gave Mother two referrals to obtain a new prescription, she did not follow through.
Five days later, the court released the minor from custody, reinstating the prior conditions of home detention. He began attending RISE Institute at this time, but cut school twice during the week following his release. On January 20, 2008, he was detained by police officers, who found him on the street after curfew in possession of a bottle of vodka. The officers found it necessary to handcuff the minor when he became violent. Later that evening, they released the minor to his parents.
In February 2008, the PO applied to “Seneca Connections” (SC) pursuant to a suggestion by the juvenile court. The minor and his family began to receive in-home wrap-around services from S.C. the following month.
“Seneca Connections” refers to San Francisco Connections, a part of Seneca Center for Children and Families, which offers mental health and support services within San Francisco. (See [as of March 19, 2010].) Once the minor was accepted into the S.C. program, the minor’s PO urged the care coordinator and support counselor to be “aggressive” in getting the minor a medication prescription. (See fn. 3, ante.)
On February 22, 2008, the juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing on the reinstated section 602 petition. The minor admitted the count alleging misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 243.6)—which the court, accordingly, found to be true—and the court dismissed the remaining count. The court ordered the minor to remain on home detention pending disposition.
The PO report prepared for the dispositional hearing noted the minor had three “angry outbursts” at RISE Institute in March 2008. Early that month, he attempted to break the front windows of the school with a garbage can, throwing trash all over the front of the school and refusing to clean it up. In mid-March he began to “escalate” when confronted about throwing rocks at trees. Finally, on March 17, he became “unmanageable,” claiming a teacher had touched him. He threatened a teacher with a chair and refused to go to the director’s office to cool off. He knocked papers and bulletin boards off hallway walls, threw metal chairs around the lobby, knocked over a magazine rack, kicked the magazines around, killed flowers on a desk, knocked books off the shelves, and tried to knock over a large bolted-in bookcase. He was swinging a broom around when police arrived. The school director, whom the minor cursed, described the minor as “5150 material.” The minor was suspended following this incident, and the director indicated she would recommend his transfer to a residential facility.
On March 19, 2008, the juvenile court entered a dispositional order declaring the minor to be a ward of the court and directing formal probation at home. Conditions of probation included requirements that the minor attend school without tardiness or truancy, obey a 7:30 p.m. curfew, and participate in Aggression Replacement Therapy. The court also remanded the minor to detention for two days, based on the “outburst” that had occurred at RISE Institute two days earlier.
Some three weeks later, on April 10, 2008, the PO filed a notice of petition under section 777 to revoke formal probation. (§ 777, subd. (a).) The PO alleged the minor had violated curfew on one occasion, and failed to attend school for five days.
In a report submitted at this time, the PO stated that S.C. had arranged an evaluation for psychotropic medications, but Mother had not made the necessary call on the minor’s behalf. (See also fns. 3 and 4, ante.) An evaluation, completed around this time pursuant to court order, gave the minor an Axis I diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder.
Meanwhile, on April 11, 2008, the minor was taken into custody after breaking a window at his home with a brick, dumping trash outside the home, and causing “general destruction” inside the home. He was again uncooperative during the ensuing admission process at Juvenile Hall. In the weeks following his release after this incident, the minor was absent two more days from school, and left school early another day after having “a fit.” On April 25, he refused to go to class and ripped down bulletin boards as he walked through the school. On April 29, he hit a teacher’s hand, sending her mobile phone “flying,” refused to clean up a mess he made, and was sent home after having a “tantrum.” On May 2, the minor went on another “rampage tearing everything apart” at school.
On May 8, 2008, the juvenile court issued a bench warrant after the minor failed to appear at a hearing on the section 777 petition. The PO filed a request for an order of detention about two weeks later, reporting that the minor should be taken into custody on the basis of the bench warrant, and for threatening to “beat [a teacher’s] ass” if she did not leave. The court granted the request on May 21.
The minor was released from custody on June 1, 2008. Later that month, he was absent from school five days without an excuse. On July 8, the PO filed another notice of petition under section 777, alleging these five absences as an additional ground for revoking formal probation.
On July 14, 2008, the juvenile court ordered home detention for the minor—now 14 years of age—pending disposition of the section 777 petition filed on July 8. In September, the minor refused for a time to go back to school. He would tell Mother he was going to school, but did not go there after leaving the home. He was seldom home for curfew calls, and he also refused to keep appointments to obtain psychotropic medication. When he cut school, the minor would “hang out” with an acquaintance who, on October 4, was shot in the ankle in the minor’s presence. Meanwhile, Mother reportedly minimized or even supported the minor’s inappropriate behaviors. She had also failed to meet with the S.C. care coordinator.
On that date the PO withdrew the section 777 petition filed April 10, 2008.
The court, on October 7, 2008, ordered the minor into custody after finding he had failed home detention. On October 16, the minor admitted the section 777 probation violation and the court found the allegations of truancy to be true.
The PO, in her report prepared for the dispositional hearing, recommended that the minor be committed to an out-of-home placement. Mother was adamantly against the minor’s placement in a group home, and minor’s counsel argued for home detention. In a letter addressed to the juvenile court, dated November 15, 2008, the minor himself asked to be returned home, stating he had “truly learned [his] lesson” during his time in custody. On November 18, the court issued a dispositional order redeclaring the minor to be a ward of the court and directing home detention. Conditions included a 5 p.m. curfew, and required, among other things, that the minor attend the RISE Institute without truancy or tardiness and wear a GPS monitor for two months.
Less than three weeks later, on December 8, 2008, the PO filed a third notice of petition to revoke formal probation under section 777. The petition alleged the minor had failed to keep the GPS monitor charged and functional after November 27, had been tardy at school on December 1, and had been truant on December 2. In separate reports submitted to the court in December, the PO noted additionally that the minor was “once again threatening school staff,” and was often violating curfew on school nights. Mother, for her part, continued to be “lackadaisical” in her parenting.
In orders issued December 8 and 15, 2008, the juvenile court ordered the minor to charge the GPS monitor and to attend school and obey curfew. On December 22, the court ordered the minor into custody from December 28 to January 4 for continued curfew violations. The minor continued his curfew violations after his release, and had a “tantrum” at school on January 12, 2009, and the court ordered him into custody again the weekend of January 16 to 19. In late January, the PO reported that the minor’s behavior was “once again deteriorating.” He missed two days of school, was again becoming physically and verbally abusive, and had been involved in an incident of sexual assault that the victim was afraid to report formally.
On January 26, 2009, the juvenile court ordered the minor into custody pending disposition of the section 777 petition filed December 8, 2008, after finding he had failed home detention. On February 2, the minor admitted the alleged probation violations and the court found the section 777 petition to be true.
In her subsequent dispositional report, the PO again recommended that the court commit the minor to an out-of-home placement, noting that Mother again wanted the minor returned home. In a letter dated March 6, 2009, the S.C. care coordinator argued to the contrary, stating that, “[w]hile... residential treatment may ultimately need to be used in the future,” the court should, in effect, “first... exhaust all other feasible options to promote family preservation, and this youngster’s success within the community where he will ultimately reside at the conclusion of any court involvement.” A letter from a counselor at Juvenile Hall, dated March 5, additionally stated the minor had been “doing very well” in his unit.
On March 6, 2009, the juvenile court issued its dispositional order. By this time, the minor had completed a second psychological evaluation, which gave him an Axis I diagnosis of Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and recommended a minimum two-month trial of treatment with Lamictal—the same medication he had previously received as part of his MST services. (See fns. 3 & 6, ante.) The court’s orders included a direction that the minor began this trial medication. The court found that the welfare of the minor required that custody be taken from his parents. (§ 726, subd. (a)(3).) It also found that the minor had been tried on in-home probation and had failed to reform. (§ 726, subd. (a)(2).) The court redeclared the minor a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the PO’s custody for an out-of-home placement. This appeal followed. (§ 800, subd. (a).)
The evaluation also recommended testing the minor for sleep apnea and its possible effect on his behavior. The juvenile court ordered this testing to be done, as well.
Discussion
The minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to an out-of-home placement (OOHP). He reasons that the court was required to consider his young age, the circumstances of his offense and the relative lack of “gravity” of his misdemeanor battery, and his lack of any previous history as a delinquent, and that these considerations all militated against commitment to an OOHP. (See § 725.5.) He urges that the memo from the S.C. care coordinator, the letter from the Juvenile Hall counselor, the recommendations of the second psychological evaluation, and the positive family history summarized in the PO’s report filed October 27, 2008, all supported a less restrictive placement. In view of these factors, the minor reasons that the court failed to exercise its discretion within the spirit of the juvenile law, which requires the preservation of family ties whenever possible, and call for a minor’s removal from the home only when necessary for the minor’s welfare or the safety and protection of the public. (See § 202, subd. (a).)
We reverse a juvenile court’s commitment order only on a showing that it abused its discretion in issuing the order. (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329−1330.) We indulge all reasonable inferences to support the juvenile court’s decision and uphold findings supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 1330.)
We observe further, that while the delinquency law requires a juvenile court to consider a disposition that will provide a ward with care, treatment, and guidance in his or her best interests, such care, treatment, and guidance must also be in the best interests of the public, and must be that which holds the minor accountable for his or her behavior and is otherwise appropriate under the circumstances. (§ 202, subd. (b).) In a making a commitment such as the one challenged here, there must be evidence that the commitment will have probable benefit to the minor and that less restrictive alternatives have been ineffective or are otherwise inappropriate, but the juvenile court must consider such evidence together with that which relates to the other purposes to be accomplished by the delinquency law—that is, the purpose of protecting the public, as well as that of holding the minor accountable for his or her delinquent conduct. (See In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 575−576.)
We have summarized in some detail the facts underlying the initial petition under section 602, and the facts concerning the minor’s subsequent performance during a period in excess of two years when he was on informal or formal in-home probation. These facts speak loudly for themselves. The juvenile court, as it noted before issuing its dispositional order, gave the minor “chance after chance after chance” before committing him to an OOHP. In our view, there is substantial evidence—notwithstanding the psychological evaluation, the S.C. memo, and the other evidence on which the minor relies—to support the juvenile court’s findings that in-home probation had not been effective and that the proposed OOHP would have probable benefit to the minor’s welfare. (See § 726, subd. (a)(2), (3).) The authorities cited by the minor are factually distinguishable and do not compel a contrary decision.
The juvenile court did, in fact, implement the chief recommendations set out in the psychological evaluation. The S.C. care coordinator argued in favor of less restrictive alternatives, but the only alternatives she mentioned in her letter were, essentially, S.C. support services that had already been available to the minor and his family for a year.
We conclude the juvenile court acted well within its discretion when it committed the minor to an OOHP.
Disposition
The dispositional order of March 6, 2009, is affirmed.
We concur: Dondero, J.Banke, J.