Opinion
E069182
05-09-2018
In re M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.B., Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J272187) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Pamela P. King, Judge. Dismissed. Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant M.B. appeals from a juvenile court's disposition order, under which it detained him in juvenile hall under a terminal disposition, to be released on January 18, 2018, which was one day prior to his 18th birthday. He complains that the court abused its discretion in committing him to juvenile hall simply because finding an appropriate placement was difficult. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile wardship petition alleging that appellant committed the crime of criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a).) At the time of the incident, he was a 17-year-old San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) dependent, living in a group home. Appellant was initially detained at juvenile hall. A juvenile court determined that he should be released to CFS. However, county counsel informed the court that appellant was recently hospitalized for an attempted suicide, and there had been multiple reports from his group home that involved repeated threats to kill staff members and residents, as well as the social worker. Appellant needed a higher level of care, and it would take time to assess and place him. County counsel said that he would have to live at the CFS office in Victorville, if the court released him to CFS at that time. Thus, due to safety concerns for appellant and others, county counsel asked the court to keep him in juvenile hall until CFS could find a placement for him. The court ordered him detained in juvenile hall pending placement.
The social worker subsequently submitted a report to the court, recommending that appellant be maintained under a terminal disposition until his 18th birthday, or put in a placement with the probation department as the lead agency. The social worker reported that appellant had previously been on formal probation for setting fire to a business, theft, and several probation violations. He had a history of delinquent behavior, intense drug use, fighting, threats, mental health issues, and going AWOL (absence without leave). Appellant did not follow any program rules at his group home, refused to attend psychological evaluations, and was not medication compliant. He had made threats of harm to group home staff and peers in various placements. He practiced satanic beliefs, used spells to heal himself, and attempted to cast spells on others. Furthermore, he had no respect for authorities.
The probation department reported to the court that appellant was declared a dependent in 2008. Since then, he had been placed in various foster homes and group homes. Appellant acknowledged experimenting with several different drugs, and reported being diagnosed with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. The probation department recommended that he be declared a ward and placed on dual status, with CFS as the lead agency.
On August 28, 2017, the court found the allegation of criminal threats to be true, but reduced the true finding to a misdemeanor.
On September 7, 2017, the probation department filed a report, recommending that appellant be declared a ward under a terminal disposition and be released to CFS custody on the day before his 18th birthday, which was in four months. The report stated that appellant said he was willing to remain in juvenile hall under a terminal disposition for that duration of time, after which he planned to reunite with his family in South Carolina. The report further stated that CFS had made 60 placement screening inquiries, but no placements would accept him due to his risk factors of violence, mental illness, drug use, satanic behavior, and self-harm. Furthermore, appellant was in juvenile hall, and his behavior was improving. At first, he refused to follow staff directives, attend school, shower, or participate in unit programming; however, once he transferred housing units, he attended school, participated in unit programming, and interacted well with his peers. In addition, his educational needs, mental health needs, physical/medical needs, and developmental needs were being met at juvenile hall.
The court held a contested disposition hearing. After hearing testimony and argument from counsel, the court commented that it would not be wise to send appellant to a placement, if CFS had one, since he would return to his drug use and would not be responsible with his academics. The court noted that CFS had checked 60 placements, and it was not even an option to put him in one at that point. The court stated that it wanted to address what would be in appellant's best interest until he reached 18, when he would be an adult. The court believed the best proposal was for him to stay in juvenile hall, finding that all his needs were being met there. The court then declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him in the custody of the probation department, to be detained in juvenile hall on a terminal disposition for 168 days, with credit for time served of 42 days. He was ordered to be released on January 18, 2018, which was one day before his 18th birthday, so he would qualify for certain funding if he was interested in it.
ANALYSIS
The Issue is Moot
Appellant argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to juvenile hall simply because finding the appropriate placement was difficult. He contends that he "should be immediately released from juvenile hall to [CFS] until an appropriate placement can be found." In the alternative, he asks this court to order CFS and the probation department to continue actively searching for a placement. He acknowledges that he may be released from custody prior to the resolution of this appeal. However, he claims that the issue raised should not be considered moot because it is likely to recur yet evade review, is not the subject of extensive written court decisions, and is of broad public interest. We disagree and conclude that the issue is moot.
As a general rule, 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." ' " (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) "An appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief." (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58-59.) On rare occasions, appellate courts will proceed to decide moot cases presenting "an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur." (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23.) "In any event, the critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error." (N.S., at p. 60.)
Here, no effective relief can be granted. As appellant acknowledges, he was scheduled to be released on January 18, 2018, and he turned 18 years old the next day. Appellant does not dispute that he has now been released from juvenile hall. Nonetheless, he asks this court to order him immediately released from juvenile hall until an appropriate placement can be found, or to order CFS and the probation department to continue actively searching for a placement. The issue is moot since this court cannot provide the requested relief. Appellant has already been released from juvenile hall, he is now 18 years old, and there is no need for placement.
Furthermore, contrary to appellant's claim, the issue he raises is not of broad public interest or likely to recur. He contends that the court abused its discretion in committing him to juvenile hall simply because finding a placement was difficult. However, the court ordered a terminal disposition in juvenile hall because of the specific circumstances of this case. CFS had made 60 placement inquiries, but no placements would accept appellant due to his numerous risk factors. Moreover, appellant's needs were being met in juvenile hall, he was almost 18 years old at the time of the disposition hearing, and he was willing to remain in juvenile hall under a terminal disposition. In light of this set of circumstances, the situation is not likely to recur.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.