Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JV114171
HULL, J.Gilbert B., a minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice Division (DJJ). The minor contends the commitment constituted an abuse of discretion by the court. We disagree.
DISCUSSION
To justify a DJJ commitment there must be evidence in the record demonstrating probable benefit to the minor, and evidence supporting a determination that less restrictive alternatives are ineffective or inappropriate. (In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.) The juvenile court’s decision to commit a minor to DJJ will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion in making the commitment. (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395.)
At the time of the commitment, the minor’s record before the juvenile court was as follows:
In September 2003, based upon the minor (15 years old) having a five year old orally copulate him, the minor admitted one count of child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).
In October 2003, the minor was placed at Martin’s Achievement Place, a group home offering sexual offender counseling. Although the minor initially was reported as making progress in the program, he was terminated from the program in July 2005 for failure to make adequate progress. During his stay at Martin’s, he accumulated 145 incident reports and did not successfully complete the sex offender program. He also admitted to molesting as many as 20 victims, male and female, ranging from an infant to an 80-year-old. The minor’s therapist at Martin’s opined that the minor remained at a “high risk to re-offend.”
In July 2005, the minor was placed at the Mathiot Group Home where he again initially performed well in nonsexual related areas and obtained a high school diploma. However, he continuously denied needing sexual offender treatment and was uncooperative in this area. He absconded on several occasions and was terminated in April 2006. He was assessed as a “moderate to high risk for committing future sexual offenses, as well as other forms of destructive acting out in the community.” In October, he admitted violating his probation by inexcusably leaving the group home. The minor admitted he had not completed the program at Mathiot’s.
At the dispositional hearing, Dr. Baljit Atwal, a clinical psychologist, testified that she evaluated the minor, reviewing all of his records and testing him. According to Dr. Atwal, the minor had learned all of the language from the sex offender treatment programs, however, he had not learned to “internalize” that information and modify his behavior. Dr. Atwal concluded that he was a very low risk to engage in exhibitionism, medium risk for incest, low risk for forcible sexual assault, and high risk for nonforcible child molestation. He had an overall moderate risk of reoffending within the next six months.
Dr. Atwal did not believe a commitment to DJJ was in the minor’s best interest because the number of positions available was limited and there was no guarantee of his being admitted to such a program because he was not a high risk of reoffending relative to many other offenders. He also would be exposed to older wards that were violent and gang oriented and likely would have to choose a side to survive.
The minor argues there was no substantial evidence that he would likely benefit from a DJJ commitment because both the probation officer and Dr. Atwal had found that he made substantial progress in the programs at Martin’s and Mathiot’s; that he did not need a secured facility because he was a low risk to commit a violent sexual offense; and that the court failed to adequately consider evidence that he was not a high priority to receive sex offender treatment at DJJ. The argument is not persuasive.
In a detailed and well thought out analysis, the court set forth its reasons for rejecting lesser restrictive placements and finding that the minor would likely benefit from a DJJ commitment. The court recognized that the minor had made progress in the group home programs, but not in the area of sexual treatment where his adjustment was “very poor,” as was testified to by Dr. Atwal. Thus, he was in need of further treatment. The court noted that because he was now 18 years old, there were no placements which would start him anew. He could not go back to Martin’s or Mathiot’s because he had failed their “intensive treatment” programs, and there were no similar facilities in Southern California.
The minor also claims the court erred when it concluded that he would likely receive in-house sex offender treatment at DJJ because in determining the minor’s degree of risk, DJJ would take into consideration the number of his victims. This is so, he argues, because the only evidence regarding DJJ’s consideration of the number of victims involved was the testimony of Dr. Atwal, and she “specifically testified that the program looked only at adjudicated offenses.” The minor reads the record too narrowly.
On direct examination, Dr. Atwal testified that “initially they’re [number of victims] determined by adjudicated offenses--documented offenses.” However, when Dr. Atwal was queried in more detail during cross-examination the following exchange occurred: “[Prosecutor:] Q. So if someone was charged with four or five offenses and admitted to one, what are they [DJJ] going to look at? [¶] A. They are going to look at how many they were charged with. [¶] Q. And if they admitted to 20 over the course of several years, they are going to take that into consideration as well? [¶] A. They will take that into consideration. [¶] Q. And the fact that the victims go from infants all the way to elderly people, they take that into consideration? [¶] A. That would be taken into consideration. Correct.”
Thus, when Dr. Atwal’s testimony is considered in toto, the court was well justified in observing that DJJ would consider the number of victims molested by the minor, namely, the two named victims in the petition and several others admitted to by the minor.
As to the minor being a low risk for reoffending in a sexually violent manner, such a fact does not render him nondangerous. Indeed, the court agreed with Dr. Atwal’s assessment that he was low risk to reoffend violently, but noted that, even as Dr. Atwal testified, he still remained a high risk to molest children. His not being a high risk to use force or violence simply went to the degree of dangerousness, not to whether he was a danger. Consequently, the public remained in need of protection from the minor.
In sum, because the record adequately demonstrates that the minor continued to be in need of sexual offender treatment, that lesser facilities had been tried unsuccessfully, that he remained high risk to commit future sexual offenses, and that he likely would receive treatment at DJJ, there was no abuse of discretion by the court in making the commitment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE , Acting P.J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.