Opinion
F086211
03-04-2024
In re I.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. I.A., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Martin Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Brook A. Bennigson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. No. 21JQ0057 Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge.
Martin Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Brook A. Bennigson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Minor I.A. (minor) contends on appeal that the juvenile court abused its discretion by sentencing minor to a secured youth treatment facility (SYTF). The People disagree. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On January 31, 2022, a third amended juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare &Institutions Code section 602. It alleged minor committed attempted murder against N.Z. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1); assault with a firearm against J.Z. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2); assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury against J.Z. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3); and assault with a firearm against N.Z. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 4). As to count 1, it further alleged minor intentionally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury or death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)), intentionally discharged a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personally used a firearm during the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). As to count 2, it further alleged minor personally used a firearm during the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (d)). As to count 3, it further alleged minor personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). As to count 4, it further alleged minor personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (d)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).
All further statutory references are to Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
On March 7, 2022, the probation department (department) filed a disposition report recommending minor be "ordered to serve a commitment at the Kings County [SYTF]" with various terms and conditions of probation. At the juvenile court's request, the department issued a supplemental report on March 15, 2022, regarding the potential for out-of-home placement rather than commitment to SYTF. The department advised minor "requires a higher level of care than an out of home placement can provide."
A contested dispositional hearing was held on April 27, 2022.
On May 10, 2022, the juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court, determined his offenses were felonies, and removed physical custody from his father. Minor was placed on probation and committed to an out-of-home placement in the care of his brother, D.A., and sister-in-law, P.A.
On July 1, 2022, minor was released from Kings County Juvenile Center and placed in D.A. and P.A.'s home.
On October 7, 2022, the juvenile court authorized the department to consent to any mental health care deemed necessary for minor.
On November 7, 2022, the department filed a "PRE-PERMANENCY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION." The probation officer noted minor lacked motivation and commitment, was defiant towards D.A's attempts at discipline, missed classes and failed all his classes in school, was suspended for being under the influence of marijuana at school, and had run away from home after being grounded by D.A. for being suspended from school. On November 10, 2022, the juvenile court held a review hearing and ordered all prior orders to remain in place.
On November 28, 2022, the department filed a probation violation against minor, alleging he failed to obey all laws; failed to return home as directed by his caregivers; and continued his marijuana use. It alleged minor violated probation by driving a stolen car, in which he fled from police officers during a 12.5-mile high-speed pursuit. The probation officer recommended minor be terminated from out-of-home placement and committed to SYTF. Minor admitted the probation violation on January 18, 2023. On January 30, 2023, the department filed a supplemental disposition report in which it again recommended that minor be committed to SYTF.
The matter was heard by the juvenile court on February 1, 2023. The court ordered the department to "prepare a supplemental report that includes required factors for long-term commitment." On February 14, 2023, the department filed the supplemental report, addressing factors supporting its SYTF recommendation.
On April 18, 2023, a contested dispositional hearing was held. The juvenile court ordered minor be committed to SYTF.
On April 25, 2023, minor timely appealed the commitment order.
The facts of the underlying offenses are taken from the department's detention assessment report and dispositional report.
Minor's Underlying Offense
On October 5, 2021, minor and his father exited their apartment in Hanford and began arguing with two teenage brothers, N.Z. and J.Z., about a parking spot. A physical fight ensued. Minor was 15 years old, and N.Z. was 16 years old. N.Z. was unarmed.
Initially, minor was fighting N.Z., while minor's father was fighting J.Z. Minor's father got J.Z. in a headlock and N.Z. went to J.Z.'s aid. In response, minor brandished a handgun, racking the slide and pointing it at N.Z. N.Z. raised his hands, as if to surrender, and backed away from minor. J.Z. then fell to the ground and minor's father punched him. Minor turned his back to N.Z. and pointed his gun at J.Z. He began kicking J.Z. in the face as his father continued to hit J.Z. N.Z. then ran towards minor to aid J.Z. and punched and grabbed him. Minor and N.Z. engaged in another physical fight, and minor, still holding the gun, shot one round at N.Z. The bullet hit N.Z. in the neck and he fell to the ground. There was a two-year-old child next to the combatants during the fight and the shooting, as well as other bystanders. N.Z. collapsed directly in front of the two-year-old child.
After N.Z. was shot, J.Z. went to N.Z.'s aid, while minor and his father walked back to their apartment, then fled in their car. They were apprehended several hours later in Bakersfield and .380-caliber handgun was found in their car.
The bullet was lodged in N.Z.'s spine. As a result, he is partially paralyzed. He has some movement in his left arm and left leg, but no movement on his right side, and cannot eat, walk, or bathe himself.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's finding that a less restrictive alternative is not appropriate. The People disagree. We agree with the People.
A. Background
Prior to the shooting incident, minor had one juvenile referral for trespassing. No rehabilitative services had ever been ordered for minor prior to the shooting.
After the shooting, minor was released into D.A. and P.A.'s care on July 1, 2022, until a car chase on November 23, 2022. His first forensic evaluation found his risk of reoffending was low. His behavior on probation soon deteriorated. During the four months he was in D.A. and P.A.'s care, he did not receive rehabilitative services. As described in the probation reports below, the delay in receiving rehabilitative services was caused by problems with the referrals submitted by minor's probation officer to Kings View California Behavioral Health Clinic counseling services (Kings View) and WestCare California alcohol and drug counseling (WestCare), as well as minor missing two appointments he had scheduled at Kings View.
Problems with Referrals to Rehabilitative Services (November 7, 2022 Supplemental Probation Report)
The supplemental report on November 7, 2022, addressed minor's "THERAPEUTIC PROGRESS." It stated, "[t]here have been multiple issues due to changing protocols regarding the release of information required by Kings View." It stated minor reviewed and signed the Kings View referral on July 21, 2022, and it was submitted on August 1, 2022. However, on August 17, 2022, the probation officer received an email from Kings View stating the referral had to be resubmitted with a release of information. The officer sent the release back to Kings View that day. On August 22, 2022, Kings View emailed the officer again to inform him that the release of information was not completed correctly and needed to be updated. On September 12, 2022, the probation officer requested new forms from Kings View, and on September 13, 2022, minor signed them. The officer submitted the new forms the next day. On September 29, 2022, the officer realized the juvenile court order omitted the term authorizing the department to obtain mental health treatment for minor, so mental health care could not be provided until the order was amended. The court amended the order on October 7, 2022. On October 24, 2022, Kings View gave the probation officer an intake packet for minor to sign. On October 31, 2022, minor went over the Kings View intake paperwork with the probation officer and Kings View stated that minor was expected to complete an intake with Kings View within two weeks of the submission of the report.
The supplemental report also noted minor struggled with "motivation and commitment" since his release into D.A. and P.A.'s care. Despite their best efforts to provide minor a safe and stable environment, minor "struggled to adjust to daily life," was "easily influenced by his friend's negative behaviors," and "defiant towards any form of discipline at the residence." The supplemental report stated that since he began public school in August 2022, minor had 19 absences and all "F" grades due to failing to submit any completed work. P.A. offered to obtain tutoring for minor, but he refused. It further states, that minor was suspended from school on November 1, 2022, through November 4, 2022, for being under the influence of marijuana at school. After being grounded by D.A. and P.A. for the suspension, minor ran away for one night.
The supplemental report states the probation officer tried to refer minor to Kings View for alcohol and drug (AOD) treatment but learned Kings View did not handle AOD treatment. He then submitted an AOD referral to WestCare on November 1, 2022.
The report concluded minor's overall performance on probation was unsatisfactory.
November 10, 2022 Review Hearing
At a review hearing on November 10, 2022, the juvenile court ordered all prior orders to remain in place.
November 23, 2022 High-Speed Pursuit in a Stolen Car
The facts about the conduct underlying the section 777 petition are taken from the department's supplemental dispositional report.
On November 23, 2022, minor led police on a 12.5-mile high-speed pursuit in a stolen car between Lemoore and Armona. At approximately 6:45 p.m., a police officer attempted to pull over a stolen car that minor was driving. When the officer activated his patrol car's lights and sirens, minor fled, driving approximately 60 to 70 miles per hour through residential streets. As minor drove towards the highway entrance, he almost collided with a white truck and drove into lanes of oncoming traffic. He accelerated to approximately 70 to 80 miles per hour, "past red lights and stop signs in an attempt to evade [the police]." Upon entering the highway, minor drove approximately 120 miles per hour, "swerving through traffic, causing other drivers to slam on their brakes in order to avoid the stolen [car]." Minor exited the freeway and drove on surface streets with multiple police cars pursuing him. He reentered the highway and "continued to weave between traffic nearly causing multiple collisions as other cars had to pull away from [him] in an attempt to avoid him during the pursuit." Minor turned onto a dirt road, then onto another surface street. He drove 90 miles per hour on the surface street and ran multiple stop signs. He then "recklessly drove several circles in a dirt lot" near a surface street and continued onto another street, where he drove into oncoming traffic and ran several red lights. Minor then crashed the stolen car into a wall that surrounded an apartment complex. After the collision, minor fled on foot towards the apartments. A police K-9 located minor on the patio of one of the apartments and latched onto his foot. The police handler of the K-9 pointed his service weapon at minor and ordered him to surrender, but minor attempted to grab the K-9. The officer intervened, subdued minor and placed him under arrest.
November 28, 2022 Section 777 Petition
On November 28, 2022, the department filed a probation violation alleging minor failed to obey all laws, failed to return home as directed by D.A. and P.A., and continued to use marijuana. It described the November 23, 2022 high-speed car chase incident. The report stated minor continued to be a "dangerous factor within the community," and "continue[d] to show reckless disregard for his own and other human life with his behavior," concluding, "it is respectfully recommended [minor] be terminated from [p]lacement and be adjudicated to the original probation recommendation of 11 years at the Kings County [SYTF]."
On January 18, 2023, minor admitted the probation violation allegations.
January 30, 2023 Supplemental Probation Report
On January 30, 2023, at the juvenile court's request, the department filed a supplemental report recommending SYTF commitment for minor. The report summarized his failing grades, problems with discipline at D.A. and P.A.'s home, marijuana use, and delays in receiving rehabilitative services at Kings View and WestCare.
The supplemental report noted D.A. would not allow minor to continue living at his home if probation was reinstated, explaining minor was a negative influence on his own children and caused issues between he and his wife. The report stated minor was unlikely to be accepted into another resource family approval or intensive services foster care home, given his age and the seriousness of his offenses because "many ... agenc[ies] do not want to introduce youths with violent offense history into their [caregiver]'s home due to possible liability issues."
The supplemental report outlined that, if minor were committed to SYTF, he would be subject to a series of comprehensive assessments by a licensed psychologist to determine his needs, would participate in regular individual therapy, attend moral recognition therapy, forward thinking, aggression replacement training, and continue school at the same school minor attended online during his time in custody at juvenile hall until graduation, whereupon he would be able to attend college and job training. The report stated that within 30 days of commitment to SYTF, an individual rehabilitation plan would be developed for minor and provided to the juvenile court.
The supplemental report stated the probation officer considered the circumstances of minor's probation violation, age, behavior, prior record, and seriousness of his original offense, and that based on minor's most recent "Noble PACT" assessment, minor's top three criminogenic needs were antisocial personality, criminal associates, and family. The report also noted that in a SYTF commitment, minor would benefit from the mental health and alcohol and drug counseling that would be available to him. It stated minor's original offense was "heinous," as he shot N.Z. in front of a two-year-old child and that minor "has shown a history of reckless disregard for others and has shown he is a threat to the community." The supplemental report also stated, "[Minor]'s high-speed chase on November 23, 2022, impacted countless other civilians in the community, especially the drivers which nearly collided with [minor] head on as [minor] drove against traffic in an attempt to evade law enforcement. [Minor] put his passenger's, law enforcement officer's pursuing him, other drivers and his own life at serious risk over a stolen [car]."
February 14, 2023 Supplemental Probation Report
On February 1, 2023, after discussions regarding the dispositional report, the juvenile court ordered the department to "prepare a supplemental report that includes required factors for long-term commitment."
On February 14, 2023, the department filed a supplemental report specifically addressing the factors for SYTF commitment pursuant to section 875, subdivision (a). It noted minor was a ward of the juvenile court, aged 14 or older, and the most recent offense for which he was adjudicated was listed in section 707, subdivision (b).
It then discussed the factors to be considered pursuant to section 875, subdivision (a)(3):
Severity of Offense (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(A)):
The supplemental report stated the facts of the shooting offense. It stated the mitigating factors were minor's youth, limited criminal history, and early admission of wrongdoing. It noted the aggravating factors were that minor's violent conduct represented a serious risk to the public, and minor's "reckless disregard for the public in his most recent arrest and [minor] reoffending just four months after release from [juvenile hall]."
Previous Delinquent History and Attempts and Success of Previous Attempts to Rehabilitate (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(B)):
The report stated minor violated his probation, granted on May 10, 2022, by driving a stolen car in a high-speed chase on November 23, 2022.
It also noted that minor's "most recent PACT screening on January 24, 2023, indicates [minor's] overall risk to reoffend is HIGH."
The report noted various difficulties in getting minor enrolled in mental health services during his out-of-home placement. It stated the minute order from the juvenile court had been missing the authorization for the department to seek mental health care for minor, and once the minute order was updated, his intake at Kings View had been scheduled for November 8, 2022, and a referral for AOD treatment had been submitted to WestCare. However, minor missed the November 8, 2022 appointment with Kings View because he claimed he forgot about it and missed the rescheduled appointment on November 22, 2022, because he told the counselor he was sick.
SYTF Programming, Treatment and Education (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(C)):
The supplemental report stated minor would be subject to a series of comprehensive assessments by a licensed psychologist to determine his needs at SYTF and the Kings County SYTF clinical director would be providing direct oversight of minor. He would participate in:
"regular individual therapy, attend [m]oral [r]ecognition [t]herapy, [f]orward [t]hinking, [a]ggression [r]eplacement [t]raining and would continue to attend school through [the school he attended during custody at juvenile hall] until he graduates; then he will be able to attend college through a partnership with West Hills Community College. Additionally, [minor] will be exposed to career and technical education opportunities in school. [Minor] would also have an opportunity to work with [a] Job Training Officer ... to assist [minor] with skills necessary when entering the job force."
The report stated, "Although there are many different types of services offered through SYTF, each individualized program is designed based upon the needs of [minor]. These specific programs are determined after an initial assessment by the clinician during the intake. The comprehensive assessment takes into consideration several domains, including health/dental/vision, behavioral health, education, and family."
Suitability for an Alternative or Less Restrictive Disposition (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(D)): The report states:
"[Minor] has already been afforded an opportunity to participate in a less restrictive disposition and has shown he requires a much more structured approach. Although there [have] been issues with enrolling [minor] into treatment, once his intake dates were set and [minor] was notified, [minor] failed to complete his intakes. [Minor's] behavior at [D.A. and P.A.'s] home also worsened once he started attending [public high school] as reported by [D.A. and P.A.] [P.A.] reported [minor's] grades started to suffer as he began to heavily use marijuana once he started attending [public high school]. This [probation] officer believes [minor] ... lacks maturity to make smart and appropriate decisions. This [probation] officer believes [minor] is capable of rehabilitation with time and services offered by SYTF."
Additional Factors or Special Needs (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(E)):
Minor was 17 years old without any known disabilities or special needs that would hinder his ability to complete a term at SYTF. Additional Information: The supplemental report stated that on February 6, 2023, the department was notified by the Lemoore Police Department about a new referral alleging minor committed sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)) on September 30, 2022. On October 1, 2022, police received an allegation that minor offered an underage female an alcoholic beverage and then touched her breasts under her shirt, against her will. Minor was issued a citation in the matter.
Recommendation by the Department: The report concluded, "[I]t is apparent that the [minor's] needs would best be served through SYTF. [¶] [Minor] has already been afforded an opportunity to participate in a less restrictive disposition, however he did not take advantage of it. As previously reported, [minor] does well under direct supervision, however, [minor] continues to commit new offenses once placed in a less restrictive situation. [¶] Therefore, it is respectfully recommended a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable pursuant to [section] 875."
April 18, 2023 Contested Dispositional Hearing
On April 18, 2023, the juvenile court held a contested dispositional hearing.
Minor's probation officer testified about the delays in referring minor to drug, alcohol, and mental health counseling. The officer stated he conducted an intake interview with minor on July 1, 2022, when minor was released from custody and submitted his initial paperwork to Kings View later that month, but there were "multiple issues" that he attempted to remedy as they arose. The probation officer stated the four-month delay was "not common" and "unusual." He stated that minor missed the two appointments that were scheduled with Kings View in November. He also stated he referred minor to AOD treatment at Kings View on September 13, 2022, but subsequently learned that Kings View did not offer AOD counseling. The probation officer testified that he did not refer minor to WestCare for AOD counseling until October 2022, and that the report showed his referral to WestCare was submitted November 1, 2022. He stated he contacted WestCare in February 2023, and learned the person he had sent the referral was no longer employed there and that WestCare had never contacted minor to follow up on the referral.
He testified that although minor was released from custody on July 1, 2022, he waited until October to refer him to WestCare because he "was allowing him to adjust to his new placement and ... didn't want to overwhelm him with too many things he had to do." He stated, it was his opinion that "it would probably be best for him to get started on his [mental health] program slowly, depending [on] how much he has to do, depending on how his schooling works, his living situation and his needs." He also testified he did not feel minor had remorse for his victim.
On cross-examination, the probation officer stated his recommendation to SYTF was based on many factors, including minor's declining behavior at D.A.'s home prior to the probation violation, the decline in his grades on probation compared to his grades while in custody, his recent "PACT" result that found he was at high risk of reoffending, and that SYTF track would provide more structure for him receiving treatment and rehabilitation than juvenile probation could provide.
On redirect, the probation officer stated he was unsure if the programs offered at SYTF listed in his report would also be offered in juvenile hall, other than job training, as he was "[un]familiar with the program in the hall."
The prosecution argued minor should be committed to SYTF per the department's recommendation.
Defense counsel argued the delays in the referrals to counseling while minor was on probation made it "unfair to say that [minor] was unsuccessful in rehabilitation when it doesn't seem like he had a fair shot at that."
The juvenile court reviewed and considered the supplemental probation reports from January 30 and February 14, 2023, all relevant material evidence, took judicial notice of prior findings, orders and judgments in the proceedings, and considered counsels' arguments. The court stated that based on the evidence and the factors of section 875, subdivision (a), it would follow the recommendation of the department and the prosecution and commit minor to SYTF.
Regarding the delays in providing rehabilitative services for minor, the juvenile court stated:
"I know counsel won't be shocked because every day when I get probation reports that I've had them where it's taken six months for there to be a referral [to rehabilitative services]. I've had where it takes six months before probation even reaches out to even meet with a minor to do an intake. So the fact that referrals were made and, apparently, made incorrectly such that it delayed the [WestCare] referral, that referrals were made that were not adequate from Kings View, and the long periods of time between apparently finding out that those referrals weren't adequate such there was a delay of several months between the time the actual first referral was made that was wrong to the November referrals for Kings View services, making a referral to Kings View for substance abuse that doesn't offer substance abuse, those are things that, I think, would clearly not allow me to find that services provided to [minor] were adequate. They were provided nonetheless.
"Having the opportunity, at least, to start the Kings View process, [minor] missed an appointment-missed two appointments. I don't know whether he was sick for the second appointment. ... However, I don't think there's an argument-there won't be an argument from me-that it certainly would be better if services were referred and followed up on in a timely manner. But the [c]ourt is also required to consider the severity of the offense or offenses for which [minor] has been most recently adjudicated, including [minor]'s role in the offense and [minor]'s behavior and the harm done to the victim."
"For those of us who have been involved in this case since its inception I can honestly say I haven't seen a case that is this severe, with this type of consequence ... the reports were that the [victim] was paralyzed, in a wheelchair . . . his life certainly will never be the same and his body will never be the same after the incident where he was shot in the neck by the minor."
The juvenile court next explained it was required to address whether the programming, treatment and education offered at SYTF would be appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of minor. The court stated, "I believe the programming outlined in the report is going to be great for [minor]," and noted his decline in behavior upon release from custody in juvenile hall, culminating in the high-speed car chase incident four months after his release. The juvenile court noted due to the severity of his probation violation with the high-speed car chase incident, were minor to continue with a less restrictive disposition than SYTF, the rehabilitative services offered on probation would no longer be adequate to meet his needs and addressed public safety, stating, "[I]t is quite possible that had he not committed an offense where he was again putting many people's lives in danger by his conduct we would have gotten to the point where referrals would have been completed and [minor] would have been able to start the services that had been ordered for him. But we are now in a situation where as a result of his own behavior we're not going to get to that point where those services as had been referred, in the [c]ourt's opinion will be deemed adequate. It's very clear to me that [minor] is in need of a secured structured type setting. Without it we've seen that he has slowly gotten to the point and by all accounts from his brother and sister-in-law, who were his care providers, that his behavior just got worse and worse and worse to the point where he is, again, engaged in very serious conduct that could cause harm to other people.
"The other concern that the [juvenile] court has is [minor] is almost 18 years old and this is his last chance in the next four months to be able to be provided with treatment that may, in fact, help change the trajectory of his life. And I'm afraid if he's out of custody for those four months he may reoffend and find himself in a situation where [minor]'s not even going to receive any type of rehabilitation."
The juvenile court then discussed minor's developmental maturity, noting the principal of the school he attended while in custody was complimentary of minor, and that it was clear he did exceptionally well in a structured setting but struggled outside of such a setting.
The juvenile court found pursuant to section 875, subdivision (a) that based on the evidence, a less restrictive alternative disposition would be unsuitable for minor. It stated:
"The [c]ourt has considered a number of factors, including the severity of the offense, including [minor's] role in the offense; [minor's] behavior and the harm done to victims; [minor's] delinquent history, including the adequacy and previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate [minor]; whether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in [SYTF] is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of [minor]; whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safety can be met by assigning [minor] to an alternative less restrictive disposition available to the court. I've also considered [minor's] age, developmental maturity, mental and emotional health and any disabilities or special needs affecting the safety or suitability of committing [minor] to a term of confinement in [SYTF].
"[Minor] is not an individual with exceptional needs. The [c]ourt finds that a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable.
"[Minor] is committed to [SYTF]."
B. Law
A juvenile court may order commitment to a secure facility if each of the following criteria pursuant to section 875, subdivision (a) is met: "(1) The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in subdivision (b) of [s]ection 707 that was committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older. [¶] (2) The adjudication described in paragraph (1) is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. [¶] (3) The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable." (§ 875, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
In making the determination that a less restrictive, alternative disposition is unsuitable, the juvenile court must consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the department, and any other agency or individual designated by the court to advise on the appropriate disposition, and it must base its determination on several additional criteria: (A) the severity of the most recent offense or offenses; (B) the minor's previous delinquent history; (C) "[w]hether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the [minor]"; (D) whether a less restrictive disposition would meet the goals of rehabilitation and public safety; and (E) the minor's age, maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and disabilities or special needs. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(A)-(E).) This review "is particularly fact intensive and requires a fully informed analysis by the juvenile court of the minor's needs and the programs' services." (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1291.)
We review the juvenile court's placement decision for an abuse of discretion. (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.) The juvenile court abuses its discretion" '" 'when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.'" '" (In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 5.) We will not disturb the juvenile court's findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. (In re Khalid B., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1288.)" '" 'In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law,'" '" which includes public safety as well as the rehabilitation of the minor. (Carlos J., at p. 5, quoting In re Calvin S. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 522, 527-528; § 202.)
C. Analysis
Here, the record shows the juvenile court carefully considered all relevant evidence and each required criteria pursuant to section 875, subdivision (a) in determining that a less restrictive alternative to SYTF is not suitable for minor. The juvenile court expressly found less restrictive alternatives unsuitable because of minor's age and maturity, severity of his underlying offenses, and the danger he posed to public safety. It noted the evidence showed minor was not doing well on probation, even before the high-speed car chase incident. However, it explained that the severity of the high-speed car chase incident meant it could no longer find a less restrictive alternative suitable while minor received rehabilitative services because of the danger minor posed to public safety. We agree.
Courts are not necessarily required to attempt a less restrictive placement before ordering a more restrictive one. (See In re M.S. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250.) However, a more restrictive commitment may be upheld only upon a showing of probable benefit to the minor and ineffectiveness or inappropriateness of less restrictive alternatives. (In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 433.)
Minor argues that because he did not have the opportunity to participate in rehabilitative services on probation, there is no evidence that a less restrictive alternative disposition would be ineffective if those services were provided.
There is, however, sufficient evidence on the record to support the juvenile court's finding of the inappropriateness of a less restrictive alternative disposition to SYTF. As minor points out, at the November 10, 2022 review hearing, the court found a less restrictive disposition to be suitable and reinstated probation, despite the decline in his grades and behavior on probation. However, that was before the high-speed car chase incident occurred.
As the juvenile court explained at the April 18, 2023 contested dispositional hearing, the high-speed car chase incident foreclosed the option of continuing to receive rehabilitative services in a less restrictive placement than SYTF, despite the "unusual" delay in providing minor rehabilitative services on probation. The court observed that, while the provision of rehabilitative services was "inadequate," it is indisputable that the high-speed car chase incident while minor was on probation was severe and posed a danger to the safety of the community, as he drove over 100 miles per hour on residential surface streets and the highway, through red lights and stop signs, narrowly missing other cars and "putting many people's lives in danger."
The juvenile court did not assume, as minor argues, that his escalation of delinquency during the four months of probation meant the late provision of rehabilitative services would be futile. It simply determined that, in light of the high-speed car chase incident, minor could no longer receive rehabilitative services in a less restrictive placement than SYTF because of the threat he posed to public safety. The court explained, "[I]t is quite possible that had he not committed [the high-speed car chase] where he was again putting many people's lives in danger by his conduct we would have gotten to the point where referrals [to rehabilitative services] would have been completed and he would have been able to start the services that had been ordered for him." However, it found, based on sufficient evidence in the record, that a less restrictive alternative disposition to SYTF was unsuitable under section 875, subdivision (a)(3) to achieve the dual purposes of juvenile court law: to both rehabilitate the minor and provide for public safety. (See In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614-615, quoting § 202, subds. (a), (b), (d); In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395-1396; see also In re Nicole H., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1154-1155; In re Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 5-6.)
Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering minor's commitment to SYTF, despite the delays in providing him rehabilitative services on probation.
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.
[*] Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.