Opinion
A156138
01-07-2020
In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JV03021201)
J.M. (the minor), a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), appeals from a dispositional order placing him at Camp Sweeney. He claims the disposition must be vacated because the court proceeded without a case plan in violation of section 706.6, which specifies information the court must consider where the minor is in a foster care placement, or where a foster care placement is recommended. (See § 706.5, subd. (a).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2018, the prosecution filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging the 16-year-old minor committed five counts of second degree robbery. The minor was removed from his mother's custody. He admitted five counts of attempted second degree robbery.
Disposition Report
The probation department's disposition report recommended placing the minor at Camp Sweeney, a residential facility administered by the probation department. The probation officer interviewed the minor, the minor's mother, and the minor's social worker. Among other things, the report described the minor's upbringing and family, his unsatisfactory performance at school, and the seriousness of the offenses. The probation officer noted the social worker recommended returning the minor "to the community with supportive services."
The probation officer, however, believed Camp Sweeney was appropriate based on the circumstances of the offenses, where the minor acknowledged targeting victims he believed carried large amounts of cash, and being the aggressor in the violent robberies. The officer opined Camp Sweeney was appropriate for the additional reason that the minor's performance at school was "concerning." The minor was "extremely credit deficient and [was] absent from class more than he [was] present. When he [was] in class, [he was] disruptive, refuse[d] to complete the work, or walk[ed] out in the middle of class." The officer noted the minor admitted an affiliation with a violent criminal street gang.
The minor had a previous referral for a robbery at school, which led to his expulsion. The minor and his mother "minimized" the minor's poor performance at school.
Social History Reports, Guidance Clinic Evaluation,
and Minor's Disposition Memorandum
The social history report recommended placing the minor at home, with services. The report—based on interviews with the minor, his mother, and his baseball coach and principal—described significant trauma associated with the death of the minor's family members, the minor's difficulty in school, and his exceptional athletic talent. The report noted the minor's remorse for his actions, his willingness to take responsibility for his behavior, and his motivation to focus in school and reengage with sports. An addendum report recommended home probation for a trial period, with services. The addendum was premised on interviews with the minor's extended family and support network, and school district representatives.
The guidance clinic evaluation—prepared after interviews with the minor, his mother, the social worker, his clinician and principal—recommended Camp Sweeney. The evaluation replicated much of the information in the social history reports: it described the offenses and chronicled the minor's family history and his performance at school. The evaluation described the minor's mental health situation and needs. Finally, the evaluation summarized the services the minor would receive at Camp Sweeney and explained why that placement would benefit him.
The minor's disposition memorandum requested home placement. He also urged the court to order probation to conduct a "child and family team" (CFT) meeting pursuant to section 706.6 before "sending him to an out-of-home placement." As the minor explained, the court could not order out-of-home placement without a case plan which results from a CFT "meeting outlining why a particular placement will meet [his] needs." The minor offered letters of support from family, friends, and coaches.
Disposition
The social worker testified at the disposition hearing, reiterating much of the information in the social history reports. The social worker recommended the minor return home for a trial period, with services. The minor's mother testified, requesting home placement. The minor's baseball coach and uncle testified. Defense counsel reminded the court that probation had not prepared a case plan.
The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him at Camp Sweeney. It recited the evidence it had considered—including testimony from the baseball coach, the minor's mother and uncle, and from the social worker—and opined it had "everything" it needed "from the family in terms of a plan." The court noted the probation officer had met with the social worker and considered her "opinions about the family and the mother['s] . . . desire and plan." Next, the court recited information in the guidance clinic evaluation, and the benefits of a camp placement. Finally, the court concluded: "with all of this information, I don't believe that a CFT at any point at this stage here would have . . . changed . . . my recommendation. [¶] . . . We've heard evidence of what the [CFT] would be like, hearing from the uncle, the coaches, and hearing from his mom."
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Background and Standard of Review
Before making a dispositional order in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the probation department must prepare—and the court must consider—a social study of the minor. (§§ 706, 706.5.) If the minor is in foster care, or if the probation officer recommends placement in foster care, the social study must include a case plan as described in section 706.6. (§§ 706.5, subd. (a), 727.1, subd. (a); In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1156, fn. 5.) The case plan must be attached to the social study or incorporated as a separate section within the social study. (§ 706.6, subd. (c).) The probation officer must submit the social study and case plan to the court before the disposition hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.785(a)(1)-(2), 5.785(c)(1).)
Section 706.6 lists the information the case plan must provide in various situations. (§ 706.6, subd. (c)-(q).) These include: (1) a "description of the circumstances that resulted in the minor being placed under the supervision of the probation department and in foster care;" (2) an "assessment of the minor's and family's strengths and service needs" and "the type of placement best equipped to meet those needs;" and (3) a "description of the type of home or institution in which the minor is to be placed," "including a discussion of the safety and appropriateness of the placement." (§ 706.6, subds. (c)(1)-(3).) In developing the case plan, the probation officer must consider the recommendations of the CFT and must document reasons for inconsistencies between the case plan and the CFT recommendations. (§ 706.6 subd. (b)(2).) A CFT "brings together individuals that engage with the . . . youth and family in assessing, planning, and delivering services." (§706.6, subd. (a).)
In 2015, the Legislature amended section 706.6 by enacting the Continuum of Care Reform Act, which sought to improve California's child welfare system. (See Stats. 2015, ch. 773, §§ 1, subd. (a), 49.5.)
"We review the court's placement decision for an abuse of discretion." (In re Nicole H., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.) We indulge all reasonable inferences to support the juvenile court's decision and will not disturb findings supported by substantial evidence. (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395.) Where the court has sufficient information to make a proper disposition, "the error complained of is not of constitutional dimension" and the order will not be set aside unless the error is prejudicial. (In re Eugene R. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 605, 615, overruled on other grounds in Nickolas F. v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 92, 115; In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 624 [harmless error analysis generally used when a statutory mandate is not followed].)
II.
The Absence of a Case Plan Was Harmless
The minor argues the disposition must be reversed because the court did not comply with the case plan requirements of section 706.6. The Attorney General argues the absence of a case plan was not prejudicial. We agree.
When the court placed the minor at Camp Sweeney, it had before it information that would have been in the case plan: a description of the offenses, an assessment of the minor's family's strengths and needs and the type of placement best equipped to meet those needs, and an analysis of the appropriateness of placement at Camp Sweeney. (§ 706.6, subds. (c)(1)-(3).) Also before the court was the family's recommendation regarding the minor's placement: the probation officer interviewed the minor and his mother, and spoke with the social worker, all of whom wanted the minor returned to the community with services. Additionally, the minor's mother and uncle testified at the disposition hearing.
As for information required by section 706.6 the minor contends was omitted, the court had ample information to make its dispositional findings and orders. At the disposition hearing, the court determined it had "everything" it needed "from the family in terms of a plan," and explained: "with all of this information, I don't believe that a CFT at any point at this stage here would have . . . changed . . . my recommendation. [¶] . . . We've heard evidence of what the [CFT] would be like, hearing from the uncle, the coaches, and hearing from his mom." Under the circumstances, the minor cannot demonstrate the court would have reached a more favorable decision had it considered a case plan prepared pursuant to section 706.6. (In re Eugene R., supra, 107 Cal.App.3d at p. 615 [absence of social study was not prejudicial]; In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 755 [lack of probation report not reversible where juvenile court "was aware of all underlying facts" at the dispositional hearing], disapproved on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7.) The minor does not persuasively argue for a less restrictive placement, nor challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the placement.
To the extent the minor challenges the failure to convene a CFT, we conclude that error was harmless for the reasons stated above. --------
The minor's reliance on In re L.S. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1100 (L.S.), overruled on other grounds in People v. Bullock (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 985, does not alter our conclusion. There, the appellate court reversed a disposition order committing a minor to the California Youth Authority where the juvenile court proceeded without a current social study. L.S. held, "[o]n this record, without the benefit of a current social study there is no evaluation or insight into appellant's problems, aside from the [criminal offense]. Given the law's concern for rehabilitation of minors, tempered with accountability [citation], it would seem impossible without the benefit of a current social study for the juvenile court to give the required sensitive consideration to all of the factors required to make any commitment, much less a CYA commitment which requires evidence of a probable benefit to the minor and the inappropriateness of less restrictive alternatives." (L.S., at p. 1105.)
L.S. is distinguishable. There, the court lacked information critical to the question of the proper placement for the minor. (L.S., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 1106.) Here, as indicated above, the court had the benefit of the disposition report, social study reports, a guidance clinic evaluation, and testimony from the minor's social worker, family, and baseball coach. Because the court "was aware of all underlying facts" when it placed the minor at Camp Sweeney, the absence of a case plan was not prejudicial. (In re Melvin J., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 755.)
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Jones, P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Simons, J. /s/_________
Needham, J.