Opinion
A156817
01-29-2020
In re L.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.R., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. Nos. 18JW0242, 18JW0243, 19JW0074)
L.R. (minor), born in 2002, appeals from a March 7, 2019 dispositional order entered after he admitted a probation violation. Specifically, minor contends the juvenile court erred by ordering out-of-home placement without requiring probation to present a statutorily required "case plan" before or at the dispositional hearing. While acknowledging the issue is moot because the dispositional order has been vacated and he has returned to mother's home, minor asks this court to address the issue and "find that the juvenile court erred when it failed to require a case plan to be provided at the time of the dispositional hearing." For the reasons set forth below, we decline to exercise our discretion to address this issue, and shall dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2018, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed two wardship petitions alleging minor committed a total of five counts of battery against his mother and siblings (Pen. Code, § 242). During one incident, minor called his mother vulgar names and pushed her after she confronted him for hitting his younger sister and brother. During a second incident, minor kicked his mother in the thigh as she tried to take his phone away as punishment for insulting her and using profanities. Minor then took his younger brother's phone. When his brother took his phone back and tossed it to their sister, minor punched his brother, pushed him against a wall, and pushed his elbow into his throat. When the mother said she was going to call the police, minor fled.
On April 3, 2018, the juvenile court suspended the proceedings after minor's counsel raised a competency issue on minor's behalf. In August, minor was found competent and admitted two counts of misdemeanor battery against his mother; the remaining three counts were dismissed. At disposition, the court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him at home on probation with various conditions.
On January 23, 2019, a probation violation notice was filed alleging minor violated his probation by failing to comply with his mother's directives. According to a detention report, minor yelled at his mother, threw a pair of jeans and a pillow at her, and attempted to push her when she told him to turn his phone off. Minor had a history of behavioral and mental health issues, had an individualized education plan, and had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and speech and language impairment. Minor pleaded no contest to the probation violation allegation and was detained pending a dispositional hearing.
Before the dispositional hearing, the probation department filed a report detailing the probation violation offense, the victim's statement, minor's prior history, his family and home status, school record, and health data. "Based on [minor's] non-compliance with his conditions of probation and his volatile relationship with his mother," the probation department concluded that "out-of-home placement is necessary at this time."
On March 7, at the end of a two-day contested dispositional hearing, the prosecutor argued minor should be placed in a group home because he had not benefited from the "abundance of resources" he had received and was in need of a structured environment. Minor's counsel asked for home placement with wraparound services. Counsel stated minor had recently been "identified as an autistic child" and had been "disadvantage[d]" by the late diagnosis. Counsel argued that while minor's actions were unacceptable, they were "understandable" in light of his special needs and his parents' domestic violence and recent separation. Counsel noted minor's family was "highly engaged, highly supportive, [and] very resourceful" in "get[ting] an attorney at the Stanford Youth and Education Law Project" to assist them and a Stanford doctor to provide ongoing treatment.
Minor's counsel also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to present "evidence about what group homes would be proposed" or "about what services would come with group homes. . . We have a very limited amount of information about what this placement would look like and whether it would be suitable for [minor]." The prosecutor responded, "The way the system is set up is that . . . probation can make a recommendation after going to [the Interagency Placement Review Committee] and having the case vetted amongst the experts in areas of mental health education, social services and psychiatric health, . . . what would be the appropriate placement for this minor, if it is a general placement order and acceptable level of care that this minor needs. [¶] Once that is done, the probation officer comes back to the judge for the purposes of disposition . . . [and] the judge can either say, yes, we're going to have a general placement order or, no, we're not . . . ." Probation then sends "letters . . . out to the various programs that have contacts with our county for placement of this youth."
Minor's counsel asked the juvenile court to look at "Welfare and Institutions Code section[s] 706.5 and 706.6. They were a part of a January 1, 2016 legislation, which requires that when the probation department makes a recommendation [for out-of-home placement], that the social study prepared by the probation officer . . . shall include a case plan" that includes "the type of placement best equipped to meet those needs." Counsel explained that disposition is "the time to present the court with evidence that meets the standard required of the probation department to make in support of their recommendation for placement. [¶] It is true that the vetting process occurs afterwards. It is true that then those placements that they have originally identified would meet his needs would then screen him after the [placement] order is made. So they wouldn't have to screen him before, in other words. . . . but there would have to [be] a presentation of a case plan that included those needs."
The prosecutor stated, "Your honor, it's my understanding that's exactly what happens. Is that once there is an order that is generated by the court, probation does do everything in compliance with the statutory rules and there is a case presented within one week to the court, a case social studies report is presented. But that does not happen until after we have an order for general placement." The juvenile court responded, "Okay. The statute doesn't require that to be done before the general placement order." The prosecutor continued, "The way our probation department is set up and the way they are doing it—I mean, it's their procedure that we are following—is that there has to be an order from the court before that sort of a case study can be put together for consideration by the court, and that will be done. Everything is in compliance with statute." The court responded, "That seems efficient and sensible to do it in that order." The court ordered out-of-home placement for minor and ordered probation to "commence . . . the procedures" for out-of-home placement. Minor timely appealed from the dispositional order.
Thereafter, at a March 22 review hearing, the probation officer reported that the paperwork for placement was complete. Defense counsel asked for a sleep study for minor and said she wished to provide additional information to ensure probation has "the most up-to-date information about [minor's] conditions and his needs." On April 19, the probation officer reported that the preferred placement had no available beds and that other placements had declined to accept minor "due to his assaultive behavior." Probation also noted that minor "has 66 days left of his [maximum confinement] time. We don't want to just run that out and then have to send him home with nothing." "So our plan is to get him approved for WRAP Around and get him some services in the home to hopefully get some of his behaviors addressed." Probation asked for one week to secure in-home services.
On April 25, the probation officer reported that minor's behavior had improved during his stay at juvenile hall and that he had benefitted from the structured environment. In light of this improvement, the lack of an appropriate and available out-of-home placement, and the concern that minor had only "60 days of custody time left on his entire record," the probation officer recommended that minor be returned to his home with wraparound services. The juvenile court adopted the recommendation, "terminated" the prior dispositional order, and issued a new dispositional order returning minor to his mother's home with services. Minor did not appeal from the new dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
Background
The probation officer must prepare—and the juvenile delinquency court must consider—a social study of the minor before the juvenile court issues a dispositional order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 706, 706.5.) The probation officer must submit the social study and copies of it to the clerk at least 48 hours before the dispositional hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.785(a)(1)-(2); see also rule 5.785(c)(1) [case plan must be filed with the court by the date of disposition].)
All further, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
If the probation officer recommends placement in foster care or a group home, the social study shall include a case plan, as described in section 706.6. (§ 706.5, subd. (a).) Section 706.6 sets forth items of information that must be addressed in the case plan, including an "assessment of the minor's and family's strengths and service needs" and "the type of placement best equipped to meet those needs" (§ 706.6, subds. (c)(2)-(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, subd. (c)(3)(A)) and the proximity to the minor's school to "ensure the educational stability of the child" (§ 706.6, subd. (e)), "[s]pecific time-limited goals and related activities designed to enable the safe return of the minor to his or her home" (§ 706.6, subd. (f)), and "the projected date of completion of the case plan objectives and the date services will be terminated" (§ 706.6, subd. (g)).
Contention
Minor contends the juvenile court erred by ordering out-of-home placement without requiring probation to present a case plan before or at the dispositional hearing as required by sections 706.5 and 706.6. It appears the court in fact misunderstood and misapplied the statutes when it stated "[t]he statute doesn't require that to be done before the general placement order" and agreed with the prosecutor that it "seems efficient and sensible" for the probation officer to wait until after the court has issued a general placement order to prepare a case plan. However, the issue of whether the court erred, or whether any error was harmless, is moot.
Minor and the Attorney General agree the issue is moot. The Attorney General argues any error was harmless because the probation department substantially complied with the statute by providing the court with the facts the court needed to make its decision regarding disposition. Youth Law Center has filed an amicus brief in which it argues the issue is not moot.
"In general, it is a court's duty to decide ' " 'actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.' " ' [Citation.] '[T]he critical factor in considering whether [an] appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error.' [Citation.]" (In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633, 644.)
Here, we are unable to provide minor with any effective relief. The March 7 dispositional order from which he appeals has been vacated and, therefore, we cannot reverse the order even if we were to conclude the juvenile court prejudicially erred. Further, minor has not asked probation to prepare the case plan it was supposed to prepare for the original dispositional hearing. Youth Law Center argues the issue is not moot because this court can order probation to prepare a case plan that identifies the services minor currently needs in order to safely remain in his mother's home. Minor, however, did not appeal from the new dispositional order placing him in his mother's home, and did not object to—or challenge the adequacy of—the wraparound services the court ordered. Thus, the issue of whether probation should prepare a case plan that addresses minor's current needs and services is not before us. Moreover, minor has not argued that the probation department's failure to prepare a case plan for the original dispositional hearing has continued to negatively affect him or that there is anything this court can do to provide him with relief. Accordingly, the issue is moot.
There is nothing in the record indicating minor asked for a case plan after the dispositional hearing, including the seven-week period between the two dispositional orders (May 7 to April 25) when the parties discussed various placement options for the minor. In fact, counsel thanked probation for all the work it had done and did not raise any objection. --------
Minor and Youth Law Center argue we should nevertheless exercise our discretion to resolve this moot issue. A reviewing court has the authority to exercise its inherent discretion to resolve a moot issue if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review. (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) Minor asks us to address the issue in large part because of "the juvenile court's routine noncompliance with mandatory statutory provisions." The record, however, does not adequately show a "routine noncompliance" with sections 706.5 and 706.6 as there is not even reference to any other case in which the court declined to require a case plan.
In any event, the issue is not one likely to evade review. Here, minor's counsel did not object to the lack of a case plan until the end of the dispositional hearing, but counsel in other cases may raise the issue before the hearing and give the court an opportunity to direct probation to prepare a case plan for the dispositional hearing. (See e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.785(a)(2) ["A continuance of up to 48 hours must be granted on the request of a party who has not been furnished a copy of the social study in accordance with this rule."].) If the court proceeds to issue a dispositional order without a case plan, a minor may—as the minor did in this case—challenge the dispositional order on the ground that a case plan was not timely prepared. (See e.g., In re Deon W. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 143, 147 [reversing dispositional order on several procedural grounds including that the minor did not receive a current social study].)
Because the issue is not likely to evade review, we decline to exercise our discretion to address it.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Petrou, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Fujisaki, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Jackson, J.