Opinion
F073227
02-03-2017
In re J.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.H., Defendant and Appellant.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JW128886-03)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. William D. Palmer, Judge. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
Minor Juan H. was found to have molested the five-year-old daughter of his father's fiancée. On appeal, he contends (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and (2) the juvenile court's order requiring him to register as a sex offender must be stricken. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Most of the facts are taken from the 2016 probation officer's report. The record does not contain any documents dated before October 2, 2015.
In 2012, 14-year-old minor was declared a ward of the court after the juvenile court found he had committed attempted sodomy upon a child under 18 years of age (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 286, subd. (b)(1)) and a lewd act upon a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a)). The court committed him to Camp Erwin Owen and ordered him released to his mother following completion of the program.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. --------
At Camp Erwin Owen, minor was an unwilling participant. He was uncooperative and disrespectful. He was involved in multiple rule violations and ultimately failed the program after two months when he was involved in a theft of razor blades with other wards.
In December 2012, a probation violation petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (a)(2)) was filed and minor was committed to the Kern Crossroads Facility. He entered the facility in January 2013.
In November 2014, a probation violation petition was filed. The juvenile court considered DJJ commitment, but gave minor another opportunity. He was continued on probation not to exceed his twenty-first birthday and his placement and care were vested in the Probation Department.
In February 2015, minor was placed in a group home, where he refused to follow staff directives or home rules. He repeatedly returned to the group home with contraband, including cell phones and smoking pipes. As an aide to the vice principal at the high school, he took advantage of his position and began stealing confiscated property from the vice principal's office. The probation officer attempted to preserve minor's placement by transferring him from the high school to an educational academy in the fall of 2015, but minor was dropped in August 2015 after being involved in a gang-related fight.
A few days later, minor failed his placement in the group home for the numerous incidents involving defiance and disrespect toward staff and for being in possession of multiple cell phones. He had failed to progress with his behavior and his sexual offender treatment. He was challenging group home managers to fights, bullying peers, and throwing items at peers. He had been moved to a different group home, but he failed to improve. Shortly before his placement was terminated, he was placed on a relapsed stage of his sexual offender program due to his defiant behavior, including masturbating, making masturbating motions toward female staff, slapping peers, and the behaviors mentioned above. His response to therapy was poor and his consistently antisocial behavior distracted him from making any progress. He would deny accusations, and when they were proven true, he would confess, apologize, then resume his usual behavior without any remorse.
In September 2015, minor was placed at yet another group home. He asked staff what would happen if he assaulted his female probation officer or attempted to take her gun. He told the probation officer to remove him from the home because he did not like it and felt he did not need that much supervision. He asked her if she would take him back to Juvenile Hall if he assaulted her. She counselled him to stay and make an effort. After three days at the group home, he absconded. A warrant was issued and he was arrested about a week later.
In October 2015, another probation violation petition was filed. Minor was detained in Juvenile Hall. At disposition, the court considered the probation officer's report, which detailed minor's placements and failures, and included the probation officer's opinions regarding minor's prospects. The court found minor had failed to reform in his many placements, and the previous orders of the court had not been effective in minor's rehabilitation. The court committed minor to DJJ to serve consecutive periods of confinement on his petitions, totaling eight years four months, and to thereafter register as a sex offender.
DISCUSSION
We review an order committing a minor to DJJ for abuse of discretion. (In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 431-432; In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.) " 'We will not disturb the juvenile court's findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. [Citation.] " '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.' " ' [Citation.] 'A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.' " (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.) "The purpose of juvenile delinquency laws is twofold: (1) to serve the 'best interests' of the delinquent ward by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the ward and 'enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community,' and (2) to 'provide for the protection and safety of the public ... .' (§ 202, subds. (a), (b) & (d); [citations].)" (In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614.) "In determining the judgment and order to be made in any case in which the minor is found to be a person described in Section 602, the court shall consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor's previous delinquent history." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.5.)
A DJJ commitment is not an abuse of discretion where the record demonstrates "both a probable benefit to the minor ... and the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives." (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.)
In this case, less restrictive placements were repeatedly tried. Minor failed each one, making little or no effort to even comply with house rules. He was uncooperative, disrespectful, and sexually inappropriate. He stole property, engaged in a gang-related fight, and considered the prospect of assaulting his probation officer as a strategy to gain a new placement. The probation officer's report noted that minor had repeatedly attempted to sodomize his five-year-old future stepsister over a period of time and had also tried to convince her not to tell her parents. The officer noted that minor had recently become interested in getting involved with the gang his father was affiliated with. The officer explained that minor had previously been warned of a DJJ commitment, but still failed the less restrictive placements he was given as an opportunity. The officer's report noted: "Additionally, while placed in two separate sex offender group homes and enrolled in sex offender counseling, not only did the minor not begin to work on his deviant behavior, he chose to rather spend his time masturbating in front of [a] female group [of] home staff, slapping other clients in the group home and being involved in possession of contraband. Thus, it appears though the minor fits the criteria for out of state placement, considering his past behavior, this option would not only take up needed valuable space from other more motivated clients, but would also put the community and group home staff at risk [of] further victimization. [¶] ... [¶] It is felt the minor needs to be held accountable for his negative behavior, but at the same time, needs to be afforded an opportunity [for] rehabilitation through an extensive, secure, long term array of services, which only [DJJ] can offer." Minor told the officer that he had just not taken things seriously, but now he would. He wanted to be placed in a group home in Iowa. The probation officer recommended DJJ commitment.
On this record, we see no abuse of discretion in the DJJ commitment. Ample evidence supported the juvenile court's findings that DJJ would be a probable benefit to minor and that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective and inappropriate. Less restrictive alternatives had clearly been unsuccessful. There was no reason to believe minor would succeed in another group home. More supervision and structure were needed to reform his behavior and to protect the public from him. The DJJ commitment was appropriate, as was the order requiring minor to register as a sex offender.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's findings and orders are affirmed.