Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. JJD059695 Hugo J. Loza, Judge.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Rachelle A. Newcomb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Poochigian, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant M.S. (the minor) committed a series of felony and misdemeanor offenses beginning when he was 13 years old. He was initially placed on probation in his mother’s custody, but he failed to attend school, he associated with the Crips, and he repeatedly violated probation and committed new offenses. The Tulare County Juvenile Court removed the minor from his mother’s custody and committed him to a series of juvenile programs, but he committed new offenses as soon as he was released from custody, and he continued to reoffend by assaulting custodial officers. The instant case involves the 16-year-old minor’s tenth appearance before the juvenile court, for assaulting a correctional officer, and the court committed him to another term in the Tulare County Youth Correctional Center Unit.
On appeal, the minor contends the court failed to make the requisite statutory findings as to his educational needs, and the court improperly committed him to the Youth Correctional Center Unit without considering alternative placements. We will affirm.
FACTS
On June 23, 2005, a petition was filed alleging the 13-year-old minor (born 1992) was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, based on the commission of count I, felony criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422); and count II, misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). The charges were based on an incident at the minor’s apartment complex, when a tenant saw the minor and his friends around her car. The tenant asked what they were doing. The minor told her to mind her own business and watch her back because he would come back with a gun. The minor admitted the allegations. The minor also admitted his association in “LPC,” the Lahu Pride Crips.
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On July 11, 2005, the court conducted the dispositional hearing and noted the minor seldom attended school and had poor grades. The minor admitted he did not go to school and that he liked to hang around with the Crips. The court admonished the minor that he was only 13 years old and this was a good time to straighten out. The court declared the minor a ward of the court, placed him on probation, released him to his mother’s custody, and ordered him to attend school and anger management counseling.
On July 14, 2005, a subsequent petition was filed alleging the minor committed count I, felony attempted driving or taking a vehicle (§ 664/Veh. Code, § 10851); count II, misdemeanor second degree vehicle burglary (§ 459); count III, misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and counts IV and V, misdemeanor making annoying telephone calls (§ 653M, subd. (a)). The minor was taken into custody after he tried to steal a car and refused to stop for an officer. He used a shaved key to unlock the vehicle and he was found in possession of a 10-inch knife. The other charges were based on the minor placing threatening telephone calls to his ex-girlfriend. On November 4, 2005, the minor admitted counts I and III, pleaded no contest to count IV, and the remaining counts were dismissed.
On December 20, 2005, another subsequent petition was filed alleging the minor committed count I, felony driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851), count II, felony receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)); and count III, misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant was with four companions when he was arrested while driving a stolen vehicle at high speeds and running red lights. Defendant admitted he used a shaved key to gain access to the car. On January 5, 2006, the minor pleaded no contest to counts I and III, and count II was dismissed.
On January 24, 2006, the court conducted the dispositional hearings on the petitions filed on July 14 and December 20, 2005. According to the probation report, the minor posed a danger to society because of his reckless actions. The minor admitted his association with “Lahu Pride” but claimed it was just an Asian organization. As of November 1, 2005, the minor only attended four days of school and had 11 unexcused absences. The probation officer had “great concerns” as to whether the minor’s mother could supervise him since he continued to commit offenses.
At the dispositional hearing, the minor’s attorney described him as “13, mentally, and 18 physically,” he socialized with older boys “because he’s their size,” and “they manipulate and use him.” The minor and his family were moving to another community and he thought that would give him another chance.
The court again adjudged the minor a ward of the court, placed him on probation with electronic monitoring, and ordered him to live with his parents, enroll in school, and attend counseling for substance abuse, anger management, and gang redirection.
Probation Violations
On March 28, 2006, a petition was filed which alleged the minor violated probation because he failed to attend school, abstain from the use of illegal substances, and abide by the curfew, school rules, and gang terms of probation. The minor tested positive for marijuana and admitted to his probation officer that his gang moniker was “BG” for “Baby Gangster,” he was a Crip and represented Lahu Pride, and he was not concerned or worried about these activities.
On April 11, 2006, another probation violation petition was filed and alleged the minor failed to appear for a hearing on the pending probation violation, and gang paraphernalia was found in his room. The minor’s mother and stepfather said he was beyond their control, left home without permission, and was absent for several days. The minor told his probation officer that his home environment was good, but he just “takes off” when he gets upset.
Also on April 11, 2006, the minor admitted the allegations in the March 28, 2006, petition, and the court dismissed the April 11, 2006, petition.
On April 25, 2006, the court conducted the dispositional hearing. The prosecutor stated the minor used drugs and did not attend school. The minor asked for one more chance so he could play high school football and get an education. The court replied the minor was in a community school because he left school, failed his classes, and was involved in gang activities, and asked the minor how he was going to play high school football if he refused to attend school. The minor said he did not go to school because his medication made him sleepy. The court questioned the veracity of the minor’s statements because he previously claimed he did not take his medication.
The court continued the minor as a ward of the court, followed the probation department’s recommendations with “serious reservations,” placed him on probation, ordered him to live with his parents subject to electronic monitoring, and attend school, individual counseling, substance abuse counseling, and the gang redirection program.
On June 21, 2006, another probation violation petition was filed and alleged the minor tested positive for marijuana and failed to remain in his home, attend school, make his current whereabouts known, and obey his parents’ directives. On June 23, 2006, the minor admitted the allegations. The minor also admitted he continued to associate with his “homies,” and he became upset when his parents pushed him “over the line.” The minor’s mother stated his behavior was better when he was on medication. According to the probation report, the minor admitted he continued to associate with the Lahu Pride gang, and he used alcohol and marijuana.
On July 14, 2006, the probation department filed a “non-compliance” report, that the minor disregarded the electronic monitoring contract and failed to check in with his probation officer when he was out of range.
On July 31, 2006, the court conducted the dispositional hearing on the pending petitions. The minor admitted he failed electronic monitoring but asked for one more chance. The court observed that the minor had been released on prior occasions, he received “a lot of chances and you haven’t complied,” and “we need to try something a little bit different.” The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court, removed him from his parents’ custody, and committed him to the custody of the Tulare County Youth Treatment Facility for 45 to 180 days.
According to the probation report, the minor completed the residential phase of the short-term program and was released on electronic monitoring on September 13, 2006.
On October 11, 2006, another probation violation petition was filed and alleged the minor absconded from his residence while on electronic monitoring. His parents reported that he was out of control and damaged the house when they refused to give him money. A warrant was issued for his arrest and he was taken into custody on November 25, 2006.
On November 28, 2006, the minor admitted the allegations. The court asked if he was attending school. The minor said he was “kick[ing] it with some friends,” he had not been in school for two or three weeks, and he was trying to get back into school.
According to the probation report, the minor was supposed to enroll in school after he was released from the short-term program but failed to do so. The minor, who was 14 years old, told the probation officer that he had a good relationship with his mother and stepfather, but he left home because he drank too much beer and regularly stayed with his pregnant girlfriend. The minor continued to associate with Lahu Pride but his “crew” was “locked up,” so he was associating with other friends. The minor’s mother said they had a good relationship, he loved his siblings, and he did not cause any problems when he was home. His mother stated he refused to take his psychotropic medication, he did not want to attend school or stay at home, and regularly left with his friends without her permission. The minor’s mother admitted she removed the electronic monitoring device from the minor’s body but claimed the probation officer told her to do it.
The probation report made the following recommendations:
“In considering Dispositional Alternatives, committing the minor to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice was considered, but [t]he current charges do not warrant such placement. Placing the minor in the Tulare County Probation Youth Facility was also considered, however the minor has a history of being prescribed psychotropic medication, therefore he is not suitable for the program. Placing the minor in the Youth Treatment Center Unit was considered, however, the minor has competed the program, and continues to display out of control behavior, and has failed to comply with his terms and conditions of Probation. Placing the minor in a Group Home, Foster Home, or in the home of a Suitable Relative was considered, but it is felt that the minor is in need of a more structured and secure setting, as he has a history of absconding from his residence, and it is felt that his needs are better met in a locked facility. It is felt that the minor is in need of a highly structured program, where he can receive anger management counseling, family counseling, substance abuse counseling, gang awareness counseling, and where he can continue his education.”
On December 12, 2006, the court conducted the dispositional hearing, and the minor and his mother requested another chance for the minor to participate in a short-term program or boot camp, and then return home under electronic monitoring. The minor admitted he had been “messing up these few years” but his brother was now “locked up” and no one else could take care of his family.
The court found the minor failed to do anything positive over the previous few years, he failed to enroll in school, he had marijuana and alcohol problems, and he continued to violate electronic monitoring.
“It’s difficult to see what is likely to happen that’s going to be good. I know you’re only 14 years old, but in that very short period of time, you know, you accumulated a lot of offenses, a lot of violations of probation.”
The court declined to send the minor home because “[w]e’ve done that many, many times already and it hasn’t worked out. We’ve tried the short-term program and that didn’t work out either because right after you were sent home you went back to what you were doing again so, unfortunately, the only real option that’s left is the one that the probation officer is recommending.”
The court continued the minor as a ward, committed him to the Youth Correctional Center Unit for 168 to 365 days, and ordered him to participate in the program, and attend family, anger management, substance abuse, and gang awareness counseling.
On May 10, 2007, a probation violation petition was filed which alleged the minor repeatedly created disruptions at the Youth Correctional Center Unit because he used profanity, yelled threats and racial taunts toward the staff, and flashed gang signs at another minor. He was suspended from the school program for aggressive behavior, he repeatedly flooded his cell, and he encouraged other minors to participate in disruptive behavior. When he was not confined to his room for disciplinary reasons, he participated in Corrective Thinking, Character Counts, Victim Awareness, Social Thinking Skills, Gang Awareness, and weekly drug and alcohol counseling. He received a psychiatric evaluation and therapy, he was repeatedly counseled about his behavior and allowed the opportunity to explain himself, but he disregarded “any attempts of counseling in efforts to assist with his compliance,” and accused the unit’s officers of being out to get him. The minor was 14 years old, he had age-appropriate developmental skills, and he was not delayed in any area. According to the probation report:
“The minor is unable to control his disruptive and aggressive behavior and treats the issues as a joke. The minor consistently makes statements that he is going to do what he wants, continues to be disruptive and attempts [to] ‘run[] his own program.’ The minor has severe anger management issues and becomes enraged when he is disciplined for his negative behavior. When disciplined, the minor blames the unit officers and Institution Supervisors for his imposed discipline rather taking responsibility for[] his actions and/or behavior, which are the cause for his discipline. The minor’s actions and behavior exhibit an unwillingness to abide by the rules and regulations of the Youth Correction Center Unit Program and Juvenile Detention Facility.”
On May 25, 2007, the minor admitted the allegations of an amended petition, that he violated the terms, conditions, and rules of the short-term program by using profanity and yelling at staff.
On June 11, 2007, the court conducted the dispositional hearing and considered the probation officer’s report, which stated the current charges did not warrant a commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), he was not suitable for the Tulare County Probation Youth Facility because he was taking psychotropic medication, he had already completed the program at the Youth Treatment Center Unit, and he needed a more structured setting than being returned to his home.
Effective July 1, 2005, the California Youth Authority (CYA) was renamed the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). (In re Lemanuel C. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 33, 37, fn. 2.)
The court found the minor was not eligible for the Youth Facility because he was on medication, and another commitment to the long-term program was the only option. The court wanted the minor’s medication reassessed to determine if it should be modified. The court advised the minor:
“... I don’t know what the situation is but you’ve been getting in trouble a lot, both inside the hall and out in the streets and everything else and I don’t know what the reason for it is, but somehow or another you have to start using better judgment because you can’t keep getting in trouble because if you do, the day is going to come where we’ll determine that you can’t handle your situation here locally and you may have to end up at the California Youth Authority.”
The court continued the minor as a ward, committed him to the Youth Correctional Center Unit for 168 to 365 days, to complete the long-term program, and ordered him to see a psychiatrist on a regular basis to monitor his medications.
Subsequent petitions
On February 28, 2008, a subsequent petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging the minor, now 15 years old, committed count I, felony driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), count II, felony receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)); count III, felony possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); and count IV, misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1).) The minor was stopped by officers while driving a stolen vehicle, and he was extremely combative and resisted arrest. He possessed methamphetamine and a shaved key was in the stolen car. The minor admitted he had just been released from the long-term program at the Tulare County Juvenile Detention Facility.
On March 7, 2008, the minor admitted counts I and IV as alleged, admitted count III as amended to a misdemeanor, and count II was dismissed.
On March 21, 2008, the court conducted the dispositional hearing and reviewed the probation report, which stated that the minor’s mother said they were extremely close, they had a good relationship, and he was very respectful of her. The minor had enrolled in an independent study program but failed to begin the assignments. The probation report stated he had a history of anger and irritability, but he had not been diagnosed with any type of mental health disorder. He had taken psychotropic medication for several years for apparent anger and mood disorders, and the report recommended individual counseling and regular visits with a psychiatric care provider.
The probation report stated the minor disregarded the terms and conditions of probation, he continued his gang involvement, drug use, and poor school performance, and he had not made any attempt to improve any areas of his life. The probation report stated a commitment to DJF was not appropriate, and he needed to address his issues in settings other than the Tulare County Long and Short Term Programs. The probation report recommended placement in the Tulare County Youth Facility because he lacked structure and accountability.
The court continued the minor as a ward but found he was not suitable for the Youth Facility because he was on psychotropic medication. The court committed the minor to the long-term program for 168 to 365 days, and ordered him to attend school and participate in all counseling provided by the program.
On September 15, 2008, the probation department reported the minor refused to attend school and was involved in two separate altercations in the Youth Correction Center Unit, but his behavior had improved and he was participating in the program.
On September 19, 2008, the minor completed the residential phase of the Youth Correctional Center Unit Program, including drug and alcohol counseling, and was released into his mother’s custody in the aftercare program on electronic monitoring.
On October 13, 2008, the minor was detained while driving a stolen vehicle, he refused to obey the officer’s orders, and he was taken into custody at gun point. On October 15, 2008, the minor was released on electronic monitoring. On October 21, 2008, the minor’s mother reported she did not know his whereabouts, and gang and marijuana paraphernalia were found in his room. On October 23, 2008, the minor returned to his mother’s house, caused extensive damage, and ran away when officers arrived. According to the probation report, the minor’s mother and stepfather stated he was rarely home after he was released from the juvenile program, he had a very poor attitude, he would not follow their directions, and they felt he was beyond their control. The minor had enrolled in school but only attended three classes.
On October 28, 2008, a subsequent petition was filed which alleged the minor, who was 16 years old, committed count I, felony driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a)), count II, felony receiving stolen property (§ 469d, subd. (a)), and count III, misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a).) A probation violation petition was also filed, which alleged the minor absconded from his residence in violation of the rules of the Youth Correctional Center Unit Program.
On November 12, 2008, the minor admitted count I and III and the probation violation, and count II was dismissed.
On December 2, 2008, another subsequent petition was filed, which alleged the minor committed count I, felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), count II, felony grand theft of real property (§ 487, subd. (a)); and count III, misdemeanor resisting a peace officer. On December 4, 2008, the minor admitted counts I and III, and count II was dismissed.
Also on December 4, 2008, the court conducted the disposition hearing for the two prior petitions. The court continued the minor as a ward and committed him to the Youth Correctional Center Unit for 168 to 365 days, for the long-term program.
On December 15, 2008, another subsequent petition was filed which alleged the minor committed count I, felony battery on a custodial officer (§ 243.1), and count II, misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), for attacking an officer and damaging a fire sprinkler in the Youth Correctional Center Unit.
On December 16, 2008, the minor denied the allegations, and the court referred the minor to a psychiatrist for a medication assessment, and a full psychological evaluation if recommended.
The Psychological Assessment
On December 30, 2008, Johan Wall, a social worker with the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency, filed a psychological assessment of the minor. The minor was in administrative segregation at the Tulare County Juvenile Detention Facility for throwing a tray at an officer. The minor said he had auditory and visual hallucinations with an imaginary friend who comforted him at night when he was incarcerated. The minor admitted he had an anger problem and he lost his temper too quickly. The minor stated he felt like hurting people sometimes, but refused to clarify what he meant or if he wanted to hurt any particular people. The minor also admitted a history of alcohol, marijuana, and “crystal” use, but claimed he did not use drugs during his previous release. The minor was under psychiatric care and taking medications. His mood had “improved some,” he was beginning to participate in therapy, and his angry outbursts had decreased.
The psychological assessment stated the minor would continue to receive weekly individual therapy to address his mood, anger, and behavior issues and medication for his hallucinations and mood. The report recommended a full psychological evaluation of the minor to determine what kind of services might benefit him.
On December 30, 2008, the minor admitted the allegations in the December 15, 2008, petition, and count I was reduced to a misdemeanor. The court reviewed the psychological report, which recommended a referral to the Special Case Investigation Unit (SCIU) for a full psychological evaluation to determine the appropriate services for the minor. The court re-adjudged the minor as a ward pursuant to the previously imposed terms and conditions. The court referred the minor to SCIU for a full psychological evaluation to determine what services he would benefit from and set the matter for a hearing to review the SCIU report.
The Current Proceedings
The instant appeal is based upon an incident which occurred on January 22, 2009, when the minor was in administrative segregation at the Juvenile Detention Facility. A nurse and three correctional officers attempted to administer his medication, and the minor was instructed to sit on his bed. Officer Mitchell opened the door four to six inches, and the minor jumped from his bed and rammed the door just enough to get half his body out of his room. Officer Mitchell gave the “‘Cover’ and ‘Cover OC’” commands but the minor did not comply. Officer Mitchell dispersed “OC” pepper spray on the minor’s facial area. The minor forcibly pushed the door past Officers Mitchell and Jones. He stepped toward Officer Garibay, grabbed his shirt, and used a closed fist to punch him in the face several times. Officers Garibay and Jones wrapped their arms around the minor and took him to the ground. The minor was placed in handcuffs and leg shackles and escorted to his room. Officer Mitchell received a back injury but declined treatment.
The minor said he did not plan the attack but “‘it just happened.’” The minor said he wanted to get out of the unit and he would attack staff if he had to. The minor said he attacked Officer Garibay because he twisted the minor’s arm earlier in the day. The minor had attacked Garibay during an earlier incident, and the minor said the attack was retaliatory because Garibay called him names. The minor blamed the court and the officer for his actions, and said he wanted to go to prison. The probation officer spoke to the minor’s mother, who used foul language, accused the probation department of fighting with the minor, claimed the minor did not have any problems when he was home, and asserted the minor did such things because the probation staff made him mad.
On January 30, 2009, a subsequent petition was filed which alleged the minor committed count I, felony battery on a custodial officer while he was confined (§ 243.1).
On February 5, 2009, the minor admitted the allegation. The minor’s attorney stated they had not received the SCIU evaluation from the prior case. The court asked the minor if he was taking medication. The minor said he was on medication for high blood pressure and anger, but he still felt anger. The court ordered the minor to be seen by a doctor to assess his medication, for the minor’s mother to meet with the probation department for an interview, and set the matter for a review hearing.
The SCIU Psychological Evaluation
On February 6, 2009, Dr. James Delahunt, a psychologist with SCIU, filed a psychological evaluation of the minor pursuant to the court’s previous order. The minor was in administrative segregation at the juvenile justice center for committing the assault on the officer. The minor received 30 minutes of daily individual school instruction while in segregation. He received mental health treatment services, psychiatric treatment, and psychotropic medication from Dr. Jan B. Weber.
The report stated the minor’s mental health history began in 2004, when he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for one month, on a hold pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 as a danger to himself. He was diagnosed with a mood disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, and his prognosis was listed “as guarded to fair without patient treatment.” He was discharged on Depakote. The minor had numerous outpatient mental health assessments, he received psychiatric services when he was held at the juvenile justice center, and he continued to receive Depakote and other medications.
The minor said he began using marijuana and alcohol when he was 12 years old and started using methamphetamine when he was 14 years old. The minor had been repeatedly suspended and expelled from school for drugs and fighting, and said he dropped out of school after the sixth grade. The minor’s older brother had been convicted of murder as a juvenile and was now in state prison. The minor had a four-month-old child. The minor was heavily involved with the Lahu Pride Crips and the Mongolian Boys Society. The minor’s mother stated she did not want the minor to return home because she could not control him. The minor said he told his mother not to visit him anymore because she did not want him.
Dr. Delahunt diagnosed the minor with conduct disorder, mood disorder, alcohol, cannabis, and methamphetamine abuse, and parent-child relation problems. These disorders “have produced significant impairment in family, social and school functioning,” and the minor would benefit from mental health treatment for six months to one year. He ruled out a learning disorder and borderline intellectual impairment.
Dr. Delahunt concluded the minor met the criteria for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED), and for SED case management services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5600.3, subd. (a), § 5699.2), because the minor’s mental disorder resulted in inappropriate behavior, substantially impaired his ability to function, and there were risks of suicide and violence because of the mental disorder. He did not find that the minor met special education eligibility requirements.
Dr. Delahunt recommended the minor’s placement in the Tulare County Probation Youth Facility under the probation officer’s supervision, and for him to complete all phases of the program, receive mental health treatment to include anger management, individual counseling and psychotherapy, and continued psychiatric treatment with psychotropic medication, and that the probation department and mental health team work together to design a discharge plan upon his completion of the Youth Facility program. It was also recommended that his mother and stepfather complete a parenting education program during the minor’s commitment.
Mr. Wall, the clinical social worker, submitted an updated report on February 10, 2009, that the minor was not taking his medication, he had visions of a short man in his cell who was his friend, medication would eliminate the vision, and he did not want to get rid of the vision. The minor refused to participate in therapy while in administrative segregation.
The Dispositional Report
According to the probation department’s dispositional report, the minor attended school at the juvenile detention facility, he had earned 50 credits, and he needed 170 credits to graduate. The minor had age-appropriate developmental skills, he was not delayed in any area, and he was not in special education classes. The minor’s mother said they had a good relationship, and his behavior at home was acceptable unless someone made him angry because he had a quick temper.
The report stated the minor was making his tenth formal appearance before juvenile court, his actions indicated he needed a structured environment, and he was not amenable to less restrictive placements. The report recommended his placement in the Youth Correctional Center Unit’s long-term program for 168 to 365 days. The report noted the minor had been evaluated by Dr. Delahunt, and the minor met the criteria for being Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) as outlined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 5600.3, subdivision (a). The report recommended the minor receive mental health treatment, including anger management, individual counseling and psychotherapy, and continued psychiatric treatment with psychotropic medication. The report also recommended the minor’s parents received parenting education. The report did not recommend for the court to limit his parent’s right to make decisions for him.
The Dispositional Hearing
On February 18, 2009, the court conducted the dispositional hearing, and the minor and his mother were present in court. The court reviewed the dispositional report’s recommendation for the minor’s recommitment to the long-term program. The court advised the minor that he needed to comply with the program because he was “going to end up at CYA.” The court also reviewed the psychological evaluation.
The court continued the minor as a ward, committed him to the Youth Correctional Center Unit for 168 to 365 days, and ordered:
“All the terms and conditions of probation as recommended by the probation officer will be adopted, including the recommendations of the psychological evaluation. So minor’s to participate in all the services offered by the long-term program, including individual counseling, group counseling, alcohol and drug counseling, anger management counseling, gang awareness counseling.…”
The court also ordered the minor’s parents to participate in services as recommended. The court asked the minor if he was on medication, and the minor said yes. The court ordered the minor to have “a regular psychiatric assessment for medication.”
The minor asked the court for something other than the long-term program “because I know I won’t succeed again.…” The court replied the only options were the long-term program or the DJF. The minor’s attorney asked the court to consider a group or foster home.
“THE COURT: No. Those are the only two options available. I mean, I’m being honest with you, that’s the only thing available.
“THE MINOR: Then can I give it a try at the other one?”
The court asked minor’s counsel if the matter should be put over because the minor was “being honest” about what might be in his best interest. The minor’s counsel refused to advocate for the minor’s commitment to DJF. The court replied, “Well, if he’s not going to do it. All right. So he’s ordered to complete the long-term program.”
The court adopted all terms and conditions of probation as recommended. The court advised the minor:
“[D]on’t do anything dumb. If it gets to the point where you can’t deal with it, you know, contact your probation officer and we’ll put the matter on calendar, and if it’s a matter of you wanted to go to [DJF] and dealing with it instead of doing something dumb like hurting somebody or yourself or somebody else, just might as well come up and deal with it instead of doing that. [¶ ] Don’t think you have to do something stupid to get yourself sent there. All right?”
The minor said he understood.
On March 12, 2009, the minor filed a timely notice of appeal from the court’s dispositional order of February 18, 2009.
DISCUSSION
I. The court made appropriate findings and orders as to the minor’s educational needs.
The minor contends that at the dispositional hearing of February 18, 2009, the court failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 5.651(b)(2), to make appropriate findings as to his education and development needs, failed to insure the recommendations from the psychological evaluation would be carried out by the probation officer, and failed to determine whether the minor’s mother was the appropriate person to advocate for his educational rights.
All further citations to rules are to the California Rules of Court unless otherwise indicated.
“A juvenile court’s commitment order may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing the court abused its discretion. [Citation.] ‘“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.”’ [Citation]” (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329-1330.)
The minor contends the court herein abused its discretion because it failed to comply with rule 5.651, which applies to “all children for whom petitions have been filed under section 300, 301, or 602.” (Rule 5.651(a)(1).) Rule 5.651(b)(2) addresses the court’s obligations to make certain findings at the dispositional hearing, and states:
“(2)... [T]he juvenile court must address and determine the child’s general and special education needs, identify a plan for meeting those needs, and provide a clear, written statement using Findings and Orders Limiting Right to Make Educational Decisions for the Child, Appointing Educational Representative, and Determining Child’s Educational Needs (form JV-535), specifying the person who holds the educational rights for the child. The court’s findings and orders must address the following:
“(A) Whether the child’s educational, physical, mental health, and developmental needs are being met;
“(B) Any services, assessments, or evaluations, including those for special education and related services, that the child may need;
“(C) Who is directed to take the necessary steps for the child to begin receiving any necessary assessments, evaluations, or services;
“(D) If the child’s educational placement changed during the reporting period, whether [¶ ] (i) The child’s educational records, including any evaluations of a child with a disability, were transferred to the new educational placement within two business days of the request for the child’s enrollment in the new educational placement; and [¶ ] (ii) The child is enrolled in and attending school; and
“(E) Whether the parent’s or guardian’s educational rights should be limited; [¶ ] (i) If the court finds the parent’s or guardian’s educational rights should not be limited, the court must direct the parent to his or her rights and responsibilities in regard to the child’s education as provided in rule 5.650(e) and (f); or [¶ ] (ii) If the court finds the parent’s or guardian’s educational rights should be limited, the court must determine who will hold the child's educational rights. The court must explain to the parent or guardian why the court is limiting his or her educational rights and must direct the parent or guardian to the rights and responsibilities of the education representative as provided in rule 5.650(e) and (f).”
The minor seizes on the fact that the court failed to complete form JV-535, as to the individual findings required by rule 5.651(b)(2), and argued the court abused its discretion and the matter must be remanded for the court to make appropriate findings. We note that during the dispositional hearing, neither defense counsel nor the minor’s mother objected to the adequacy of case plan, requested any additional educational orders, testing or evaluation, or challenged the factual accuracy of the contents of the case plan. Moreover, the entirety of the record reflects the court addressed each point required by rule 5.651(b)(2). At the dispositional hearing, the court ordered the minor to be “under the supervision of the probation officer to complete the terms and conditions of probation.” The court adopted “[a]ll the terms and conditions of probation as recommended by the probation officer.” Based upon those terms and conditions, the court ordered the minor to “[a]ttend school regularly [and] obey school rules and regulations.” The court further ordered the minor to “[p]articipate in individual, group, or family counseling, as directed by the probation officer,” which specifically included alcohol and other drug counseling, anger management counseling, and gang counseling. The court also approved the probation officer’s case plan, which stated that the minor did not have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and did not have mental health educational needs. In addition, the dispositional report stated the minor had age-appropriate developmental skills, he was not delayed in any area, and he was not a special education student, and the psychological evaluation did not find the minor met special education eligibility requirements pursuant to Government Code section 7570 et seq.
The minor complains the court failed to ensure that he would receive educational services consistent with psychological report’s diagnosis that the minor was Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED). The record again refutes this assertion. In the course of the prior petitions and probation violations, the court was extremely concerned about the minor’s psychological condition and medications, and the court repeatedly ordered review of the minor’s psychotropic medications. In December 2008, the court ordered a psychological assessment of the minor, and subsequently adopted the assessment’s recommendation for a full psychological evaluation. In the meantime, the minor committed the instant battery upon the custodial officer and another petition was filed, and the court continued the dispositional hearing in this matter pending the completion of the SCIU evaluation.
At the dispositional hearing, the court expressly adopted “[a]ll the terms and condition of probation … including the recommendations of the psychological evaluation,” which completely reviewed the minor’s mental health history and found the minor met the criteria for being Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED), and to receive SED case management services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5699.2. Dr. Delahunt’s SCIU evaluation specifically found the minor’s mental disorders “produced significant impairment in his family, social and school functioning,” the minor needed mental health treatment to address these issues, and the minor did not meet special education eligibility requirements.
The court’s order encompassed the recommendation in the psychological evaluation for the minor to receive mental health treatment, continued psychiatric treatment with psychotropic medication, and for the probation department and mental health team to work together to design a discharge plan upon the minor’s completion of his commitment period. The court also ordered the minor to have “a regular psychiatric assessment” of his medications. The court’s orders fully addressed and considered the minor’s psychological condition and SED status.
The minor contends the court herein failed to make specific findings as to his educational needs as required by In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Angela M.). In Angela M., a psychological report found a minor was extensively using drugs, which may have been an attempt to self-medicate for her bipolar disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The report stated the minor needed to have an IEP assessment and recommended her placement in a psychiatric-treatment facility rather than DJF. However, the juvenile court committed the minor to DJF based on her drug addiction and gang activities. (Id. at pp. 1395-1396.) Angela M. found the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed the minor to DJF because it failed to make any findings as to her educational needs even though it was “clearly on notice that [the minor] may have special educational needs.” (Id. at p. 1398.)
Angela M. is clearly distinguishable from the instant case because it held that prior to committing a minor to DJF, the juvenile court has a duty to consider or determine whether the minor has special educational needs. The juvenile court in Angela M. was completely unaware of its duty and failed to consider the minor’s psychological history. (Angela M., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1398.) In the instant case, however, the minor was not committed to DJF, the juvenile court herein was clearly aware of the extensive psychological evaluations and assessments, and it ordered the probation department to comply with the recommendations in those reports. While the minor in this case clearly has mental health problems, the reports repeatedly found that he had age-appropriate developmental skills, he was not a special education student, and he did not need an IEP. Moreover, the court ordered the minor to have continued mental health and psychiatric treatment, and for the probation department and mental health team to work together to design a discharge plan upon the minor’s completion of his commitment period. The court’s orders did not foreclose the possibility that a recommendation for either special education or an IEP might be appropriate upon further evaluation of the minor’s needs.
The minor contends the court should have appointed an educational representative for him, as provided for in rule 5.651(b)(2), and asserts his mother was an inadequate advocate for his educational needs. The dispositional report did not find any need for the court to issue an order limiting his parent’s right to make education decisions for him. Defense counsel did not express any doubt as to the ability of the minor’s mother to advocate for his educational needs, and there is no evidence in the record to support such an assertion. Both the minor and his mother repeatedly said they had a close relationship with each other throughout the entirety of the juvenile proceedings. While the minor’s mother eventually decided that she could not control his behavior at home, she greatly cared about his well-being and had no problem serving as his advocate, because she repeatedly complained to the probation officer that he was being mistreated by the probation department and custodial officers. There was thus no basis for the court to issue an order limiting the right of the minor’s mother to make education decisions for him, or to appoint an educational representative for the minor.
While the court herein did not complete the form as contemplated by rule 5.651(b)(2), the court’s orders addressed every issue required by that rule, the court adequately considered the minor’s educational needs, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it made the dispositional orders in this case.
II. The dispositional order.
The minor contends the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the Youth Correctional Center Unit because it failed to consider educational needs pursuant to rule 5.651(b)(2) and other appropriate placements. We have already addressed and rejected the minor’s contentions that the court failed to consider his educational needs pursuant to rule 5.651(b)(2).
The minor further asserts that at the dispositional hearing, the court failed to consider less restrictive commitments and alternative placement options that were more consistent with meeting his unique needs as a Seriously Emotionally Disturbed child, and simply recommitted him to a facility where he had repeatedly failed to succeed.
This argument is again refuted by the entirety of the record. While the minor claims he never succeeded in his prior placements, the record reflects that on September 13, 2006, he successfully completed the residential phase of the short-term program and was released on electronic monitoring, but on October 11, 2006, a probation violation petition was filed because he absconded from his residence. On September 19, 2008, the minor completed the residential phase of the Youth Correctional Center Unit program, and was released on electronic monitoring. On October 13, 2008, less than a month later, he was detained while driving a stolen vehicle and arrested at gunpoint.
In the instant matter, the dispositional report clearly reviewed all possible commitments for the minor and concluded that less restrictive alternatives were not appropriate given his record and failure to comply with the terms of probation and electronic monitoring. At the dispositional hearing, the court decided to give the minor another chance in the long-term program at the Youth Correction Center Unit, but specifically ordered the probation department to follow the findings and recommendations in the psychological reports and assessments. While the minor had previously been committed to the Youth Correctional Center Unit, a full SCIU evaluation had not been previously performed and he had not been committed pursuant to the findings and recommendations in the psychological assessment.
We note that at the dispositional hearing, the minor objected to the court’s commitment order and asked to be sent to DJF. The minor’s attorney refused to argue for commitment to DJF, and the court admonished the minor not to do something “stupid” just so he would be sent to DJF. The court advised the minor that “[i]f it gets to the point where you can’t deal with it, you know, contact your probation officer and we’ll put the matter on calendar.…” The minor said he understood.
Based on the record before the juvenile court, it did not abuse its discretion when it committed the minor to the Youth Correctional Center Unit and ordered the probation department to follow the specific findings and recommendations in the psychological reports and assessments.
The entire record herein reflects a juvenile court and probation system that accorded the minor numerous opportunities to rectify behavior with a range of custodial plans designed to achieve successful outcomes. Through several proceedings involving a number of criminal offenses and acts of defiance toward custodial authority, the juvenile court exhibited forbearance in dealing with serious behavioral transgressions. The dispositional record shows clear and thorough understanding of the nature of the minor’s condition, needs, and rights in fulfillment of the policy requirements addressed by rule 5.651.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Gomes, Acting P.J.Hill, J.