Opinion
A157015
02-27-2020
In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.B., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JVSQ186093)
16-year-old S.B. appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order placing him in an out-of-county group home after he committed misdemeanor battery against his mother and various offenses including felony assault against his mother's boyfriend. He contends the court abused its discretion by placing him in an out-of-county group home. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2018, an original wardship petition was filed alleging S.B. committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242) against his mother. According to a probation officer's report, S.B. yelled at his mother to get out of the house, grabbed her by the shirt, and pushed her down the hallway and out the front door of the house. S.B.'s mother did not resist because S.B. had injured her in the past when she resisted. S.B. admitted the allegation.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
While the matter was pending disposition, a second wardship petition was filed alleging S.B. committed felony elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(2)(A), count 1), felony elder abuse with great bodily injury (§ 368, subd. (b)(1), count 2), felony assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and with personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), count 3), felony false imprisonment (§ 236, count 4), misdemeanor battery (§ 242, count 5), misdemeanor destruction of a wireless communication device (§ 591.5, count 6), and misdemeanor disturbing the peace (§ 415, count 7). This petition was based on an incident in which S.B. attacked his mother's boyfriend, T.F., who was born in 1951.
At a contested jurisdictional hearing on the second petition, T.F. testified he was riding his bicycle past S.B. and his mother's house when S.B.'s mother invited him inside. About five minutes later, S.B. came home with a friend. T.F. shook hands with S.B. and his friend and asked S.B.'s friend what his name was. S.B.'s friend said "things like, 'I don't have to tell you. What are you—a cop?' " The friend also said he was in a gang and "we don't take disrespect." T.F. backed away, said he did not want any trouble, and went outside.
S.B. followed T.F., got "in [his] face," and repeatedly asked, "Do we have a problem?" T.F. "just kept backing up" and moved towards the street with his bicycle, but S.B. grabbed the bicycle and prevented T.F. from leaving. S.B. and his friend were yelling at T.F.; S.B. was the more aggressive one.
T.F. pulled a bicycle pump from his bicycle to defend himself and held it out to maintain some distance between himself and S.B. S.B. said, "You're going to hit me with a stick." T.F. said, "No, I'm not," and passed the pump to S.B.'s mother "in a retreating mode" to show he was not trying to be aggressive.
T.F. said he did not want any trouble and was going to call for assistance. He put his bicycle down, walked away, and took out his cell phone. S.B. took the cell phone from T.F.'s hand and threw it down. When T.F. bent down to pick it up, S.B. picked it up and threw it over the fence. As T.F. turned towards the fence, he was struck in the back of the head and lost consciousness. T.F. did not know where S.B.'s friend was when he was struck but knew S.B. was directly behind him. T.F. regained consciousness and tried to get up, but S.B. kicked him while he was still on the ground, then ran away. S.B.'s mother called the police.
S.B.'s mother testified that S.B.'s friend had gone back inside her house at one point and returned with a knife. She did not think T.F. or S.B. saw the knife "because they were keeping their eyes on each other."
As a result of the attack, T.F. suffered two black eyes, a swollen, bruised, and bleeding face, jaw pain that prevented him from chewing for one week, hearing and vision impairments, and damage to the bone above his eyebrow. He received stitches and morphine at the hospital.
Police officers went to the hospital and videotaped a statement from S.B.'s mother in which she said that S.B. and his friend knocked T.F. down and kicked him. S.B., S.B.'s mother, and S.B.'s friend all testified at the hearing that T.F. was the initial aggressor and S.B. was defending himself.
The juvenile court sustained the petition as to counts 3 (assault with personal infliction of force likely to cause great bodily injury), 5 (misdemeanor battery), 6 (misdemeanor destruction of a wireless communication device), and 7 (misdemeanor disturbing the peace). The court dismissed the remaining counts and ordered S.B. detained at juvenile hall pending disposition.
According to a dispositional report, S.B. continued to have serious anger management problems despite having been in therapy. His mother lived in fear of him, had moved out of their home to avoid contact with him, and displayed the signs of a domestic violence victim. A family friend who lived in S.B.'s home had been caring for S.B. after his mother moved out, but she was not an appropriate caretaker as she was "elderly, has physical limitations, and . . . stays in her room with the door closed for a majority of the time." Probation also noted S.B. "is in great need of intensive anger management, coping skills[,] and counseling" and that resources within the county are insufficient to meet those needs.
At the contested dispositional hearing, S.B. presented testimony from Terry Vipond, a licensed clinical social worker who had been providing S.B. with counseling services for approximately one year. Vipond was aware of S.B.'s criminal charges and was working with him on non-violent conflict resolution. Vipond believed there were additional services he could provide to help S.B. with his anger management issues. A representative from the "wrap-around" program testified she had periodically assisted S.B. and his mother deal with family trauma and pain since May 2016 and that there were services available to S.B. in the county that could teach him "how to live in this environment" and "be successful."
S.B.'s counsel asked that S.B. be released with an ankle monitor and/or on house arrest "with as many conditions as the court deems appropriate," including therapy sessions with Vipond twice a week. The prosecutor was concerned about releasing S.B. back into the home in which both of the violent acts occurred and questioned the therapy's effectiveness as the level of S.B.'s violence increased during the time he was regularly seeing Vipond. The probation officer commended S.B. for engaging in therapy and making improvements in school but that, after extensive discussions, the "probation's stance on placement" was that S.B. should be placed in a group home where he could receive the intensive services he needs "before he does turn 18 so we don't see him on the adult side."
The juvenile court expressed a preference for S.B. to stay in the county but acknowledged that an in-county placement that could address his needs might not be available. The court ordered S.B. detained in juvenile hall for 120 to 240 days pending a search for a suitable out-of-home placement.
Thereafter, the juvenile court held several placement review hearings at which the court, among other things, instructed probation to follow up with local service providers and ordered the parties to meet and confer and return with primary and back-up placement plans. At one point, S.B. was "on the wait list for a couple of different placements." At one hearing, probation reported it had secured a placement for S.B. at Creative Alternatives, a group home in Turlock. S.B.'s counsel requested a continuance to look into the placement.
At the final placement review hearing, probation reported that the Creative Alternatives placement was still available. S.B.'s counsel argued for a local placement, stating S.B. could stay at his counselor's home and continue to receive services. The probation officer responded that S.B.'s counselor was leaving the area, there were no local housing options other than foster care, and the local batterer's intervention program was not taking new clients. In contrast, S.B. "would receive all these services in a group home placement. . . ." The officer also opined that the "major issues" in this case, including S.B.'s history of violence towards his mother and the serious injuries he inflicted on T.F., "would best be addressed in an intensive environment." The juvenile court authorized placement at Creative Alternatives, finding that "the more intensive treatment for batterer's intervention program, the sanctioned program, is more appropriate for the young man . . . due to the long-standing violent lifestyle he has led and the very serious charges here."
DISCUSSION
S.B. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing him in an out-of-county group home "because the court failed to adequately consider less restrictive placement alternatives and there was not substantial evidence that the distant group home placement was of probable benefit to [him] or that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate." We disagree.
" 'The purpose of the juvenile court law is "to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible. . . . If removal of a minor is determined by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the minor with his or her family shall be a primary objective. . . ." "Minors under the juvenile court's jurisdiction must receive the care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interest and the best interest of the public. [Citation.] Additionally, minors who have committed crimes must receive the care, treatment, and guidance that holds them accountable for their behavior, is appropriate for their circumstances, and conforms with the interest of public safety and protection. [Citation.] This guidance may include punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives. [Citation.]" ' [Citation.]" (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154-1155.)
"We review a juvenile court's commitment decision for abuse of discretion, indulging all reasonable inferences to support its decision. [Citation.]" (In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1320.) When determining whether there was such substantial evidence, "we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law." (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395.)
The statutory scheme guiding the juvenile court in its treatment of juvenile offenders " ' "contemplates a progressively restrictive and punitive series of disposition orders in cases such as that now before us—namely, home placement under supervision, foster home placement, placement in a local treatment facility and, as a last resort, [the Department of Juvenile Justice]." ' " (In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 577.) However, "less restrictive placements do not actually have to have been tried." (Ibid.) "[I]f there is evidence in the record to show a consideration of less restrictive placements was before the court, the fact the judge does not state on the record his consideration of those alternatives and reasons for rejecting them will not result in a reversal." (Ibid.) Reversal is unwarranted if there is "some evidence to support the judge's implied determination that he sub silentio considered and rejected reasonable alternative dispositions." (Ibid.)
Here, the record demonstrates the juvenile court considered less restrictive alternatives and S.B.'s best interests before authorizing placement in the out-of-county group home. The court "read and considered" the dispositional report that set forth S.B.'s "great need" for services that were unavailable in the county. The court was also aware that S.B. could not live with his mother—a victim of his violence who was afraid to live with him— and that their family friend would not be an appropriate caretaker. The court also heard testimony from local service providers and presumably determined the services inadequate to address S.B.'s intensive needs. This finding was supported by evidence that S.B. engaged in increasingly violent acts during the time he was receiving these local services.
S.B. asserts the juvenile court failed to consider the proximity of the placement to his home, which courts are required to do "in order to achieve the goals of family reunification and rehabilitation." (Citing In re Nicole H., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1156 [reversing placement order where the record was devoid of evidence or reasoning supporting a group home placement far from the parent's home].) In fact, the court did consider the group home's location, stating several times throughout the hearings that its preference was for a local placement. Nevertheless, in light of S.B.'s needs, the seriousness of the offenses he committed, and the lack of adequate resources available within the county, the court determined the group home was best equipped to meet S.B.'s needs and assist him in learning the skills necessary to safely reunify with his mother. This was not an abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Petrou, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Siggins, P.J. /s/_________
Jackson, J.