Opinion
E079088
07-19-2023
In re M.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.H., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robin Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorney Generals, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. J290249. Tony Raphael, Judge.
Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robin Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorney Generals, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MILLER J.
Defendant and appellant M.H. (minor) appeals from the juvenile court's order denying his request for a referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1 committee in San Bernardino, and ordering probation placement. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 20, 2021, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged that minor made criminal threats under Penal Code section 422 (count 1). On September 14, 2021, a juvenile court granted minor informal probation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725. Thereafter, on January 11, 2022, the juvenile court found that minor had violated informal probation, declared minor a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and placed minor on summary probation.
On January 31, 2022, the People filed a petition alleging numerous probation violations. Specifically, the petition alleged that minor had possessed a weapon, refused to return home, had run away from a shelter, and failed to attend school. On February 16, 2022, the juvenile court found minor had violated probation. On February 25, 2022, the juvenile court granted minor's request to live with his grandmother in Texas while he continued on probation.
On April 11, 2022, the People filed a new petition alleging another probation violation based on minor's arrest for assaulting his grandfather in Texas. On April 26, 2022, minor requested that the juvenile court refer his matter to a section 241.1 committee. Minor's counsel stated: "I'm also requesting a referral to .241. I know we've had an off-the-record discussion regarding that issue, .241. But it's our position that if he is successful in fighting these violations, we have to have a place for him. And it's our legal position that probation can't send him to a probation placement. So we'd ask that the Court refer the matter to the 241.1 committee."
The People opposed the request, and stated: "Your Honor, the People would ask that this not be referred to the 241.1 committee based on the off-the-record discussion we just had since this minor is not a 300 and this request was previously made on April 12th."
In denying minor's request, the court stated: "I'm going to deny the request to refer it to the .241 at this point. If . . . the allegations are sustained, there is going to be no basis for the Court to consider CFS placement. If they are not sustained, then the Court will have to make a determination as to whether or not placement is appropriate. [¶] But I don't believe that a referral to the 241.l committee, when the minor is a 600 and that this is a single-status jurisdiction, is going to be fruitful. I think [I] understand counsel's argument with this regard. But I think the first step is to just have the [jurisdictional hearing]."
On May 3, 2022, the juvenile court found that minor had violated probation. On May 16, 2022, the juvenile court held a contested dispositional hearing. Minor's counsel requested that minor's case be referred to a section 241.1 committee. The court denied minor's request. The court then continued minor as a ward on summary probation and ordered minor remain in juvenile hall pending proper placement by the probation department. The preference was for minor to be reunited with his mother.
On May 31, 2022, minor filed a notice of appeal indicating an appeal of the placement order dated May 16, 2022.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends that "the juvenile court committed prejudicial error by refusing to refer [minor's] case to the county's section 241.1 committee and instead ordering probation placement."
"In California, the juvenile court's jurisdiction over a minor can be invoked in two ways: (1) by a dependency petition (§ 300), which alleges the child's home is unfit due to parental abuse or neglect; or (2) by a delinquency petition, which accuses the child of either disobedience or truancy (§ 601) or the violation of a law that defines a crime (§ 602)." (In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30, 42.) "In the broadest sense, adjudications under section 300 are 'dependency' proceedings, and adjudications under sections 601 and 602 are 'delinquency' proceedings. When the juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over a child under section 601 or 602, the minor is described as a 'ward' of the court." (Id. at p. 43.)
Generally, a minor cannot be both a dependent of the juvenile court under section 300, and a ward of the juvenile court under sections 601 or 602. (§ 241.1, subd. (d); In re Ray M. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1048 (Ray M.).) Where a minor appears to qualify as both a dependent and a ward, "section 241.1 sets forth the procedure the juvenile court must follow to determine under which framework the case should proceed." (Ray M., at p. 1048.) Section 241.1, subdivision (a), provides: "the county probation department and the child welfare services department shall . . . initially determine which status will serve the best interests of the minor and the protection of society. The recommendations of both departments shall be presented to the juvenile court with the petition that is filed on behalf of the minor, and the court shall determine which status is appropriate for the minor." Section 241.1's "statutory mandate is 'augmented by [California Rules of Court] rule 5.512, which requires the joint assessment under section 241.1to be memorialized in a written report.'" (Ray M., at p. 1049.)
Notably, the statutory requirement for a joint recommendation applies upon the filing of the second petition; the court in which the second petition has been filed must determine whether minor's case should proceed as a dependency or delinquency case, or if the requirements for dual status have been met. (In re Aaron J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1055.) These requirements, however, do not apply when a county transitions from a dual status protocol to a single status protocol. (In re S.O. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 781, 787-790.) Effective April 30, 2019, San Bernardino County ended the dual status/lead agency system and became a single-status county. (§ 241.1, subdivision (d); S.O., at pp. 786-792.) Therefore, because San Bernardino is now a single-status county, dual jurisdiction over minor is prohibited. (S.O., at p. 788.) Although dual jurisdiction of minor is prohibited under section 241.1 in San
On January 26, 2023, the People filed a request for judicial notice. Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d)(1), 453, and 459, subdivision (a), the People asked that we take judicial notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 241.1 Committee Single Status Protocol dated September 2019, which was attached as Exhibit A (Single Status Protocol). On the same day, we notified defendant that he "may serve and file an opposition." On February 8, 2023, we reserved for consideration with the appeal on the request for judicial notice. We hereby grant the People's request for judicial notice.
Minor turned 18 on February 5, 2023. When a minor turns 18, the minor is no longer subject to the juvenile court dependency jurisdiction, subject to specified objections. (§ 300; In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633, 645, overruled on another ground in In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283, 287; see In re Ruth M. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3rd 475, 480, fn. 4 ["Ruth reached the age of 18 in November 1990, during the pendency of this appeal. However, it is necessary for this court to review the order as it affects the rights of the parties as of the time it was made; the appeal is not moot"].) We hereby exercise our discretion and address minor's appeal on the merits.
Bernardino, a referral to the section 241.1 committee was not required in this case because section 241.1 does not apply; minor was not a ward under the juvenile dependency court during the pendency of his delinquency case.
When minor was seven years old, he was removed from his mother's custody and placed in the custody of Children and Family Services (CFS). Minor was born in February of 2005; therefore, it would have been around 2011. Thereafter, when minor was nine years old, his aunt, M.D. (Aunt) became his legal guardian. Minor was in her custody when the delinquency petition was filed.
On March 1, 2023, minor filed a request for judicial notice of the record in the dependency case, In re M.H., San Bernardino Superior Court case Number J245092, under Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d)(1), 453, and 459, subdivision (a). On March 16, 2023, this court denied minor's request for judicial notice.
In January of 2022, minor ran away from Aunt's home. Minor contacted his probation officer and "was very adamant and expressed that he was not returning home." Minor did not return to Aunt's house. Instead, he was placed in different temporary shelters. Meanwhile, minor's maternal grandmother expressed that she was willing to take minor into her home in Texas.
In a "detention hearing VOP" dated April 8, 2022, a probation officer stated that on January 11, 2022, minor was declared a ward in his delinquency case, and "[o]n February 25, 2022, at a dispositional hearing, the youth was continued a ward and ordered maintained at his Grandmother's home in Texas per the Interstate Compact for Juveniles." After minor assaulted his grandfather, the State of Texas "denied the Transfer of Supervision" and ordered minor returned to California." When Aunt was contacted about minor's return, Aunt claimed "her guardianship was terminated and she was no longer the youth's legal guardian." A social service practitioner, however, verified that the aunt was still minor's legal guardian; the aunt's request to rescind her guardianship was denied on March 4, 2022. Despite being minor's legal guardian, the aunt refused to pick minor up from the airport. The aunt told the probation officer that "the paperwork to rescind her guardianship of [minor] was resubmitted to the Court."
While the probation officer was attempting to find someone to pick minor up from the airport, minor's mother contacted the probation department. "She mentioned she is trying to gain custody of her younger children as well as [minor]. She stated she was available and willing to pick [minor] up from the airport and bring him to the probation office. [Mother] also mentioned her parental rights were never taken from her." Mother picked up minor and took him to the probation office on April 7, 2022.
On May 2, 2022, the probation officer filed a court memo regarding the investigation whether placement of minor with his biological mother was appropriate in the delinquency case. The officer reported that "the matter last appeared before Dependency Court on April 14, 2014."
The minute order from the April 14, 2014, contested section 366.26 hearing, was provided. The order stated: "THE PETITION IS DISMISSED, JURISDICTION IS TERMINATED AND ALL COUNSEL RELIEVED.... [¶] . . . [¶] COURT CASE HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND DISCHARGED ON 04/14/2014."
Notwithstanding, minor contends that that "respondent's assertion regarding the lack of evidence about [minor's] section 300 dependent status is inaccurate. Not only are there statements from both [minor] and [the aunt] related to her legal guardianship but the record itself contains minute orders from those dependency proceedings."
We disagree with minor's assessment of the evidence. As provided in detail ante, the evidence showed that there was a dependency case involving minor. However, the dependency case was dismissed on April 14, 2014.
Minor also contends that a referral to a section 241.1 was necessary because of the "potential of dual status," because the aunt filed a petition to be discharged of her guardianship of minor. Although the aunt filed the petition, there is nothing in the record to indicate that CFS would file another section 300 petition involving minor.
Based on the above, while we agree with minor that the record in this case shows that minor was a ward in a dependency case, the record also shows that this dependency case was dismissed on April 14, 2014. Moreover, a review of the record did not provide any evidence of a current dependency case involving minor that would trigger the application of section 241.1 in this case.
Therefore, because minor was a ward in an earlier dependency case that was dismissed in 2014, there was no pending dependency case at the time of this case. Minor was only a ward under the juvenile delinquency court. Hence, the juvenile court did not err in denying minor's request to refer his case to the county's section 241.1 committee.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order denying minor's request for a referral to a section 241.1 committee is affirmed. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J. FIELDS J.