California Cases February 14, 2022: People v. D.G. (In re D.G.)

Case Description

1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 20JV44164

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The minor, D.G., appeals from a December 3, 2020 dispositional order continuing him as a ward of the court and committing him to the enhanced ranch program for six to eight months, following his admission that he received a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d) and his admissions to allegations in a probation violation notice (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777). At the disposition hearing, the prosecutor argued for a commitment

2

to the ranch program while the minor sought to be returned home on the electronic monitoring program (EMP) with wraparound services.

On appeal, the minor contends that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the ranch because (1) the court failed to exercise its discretion in making the decision and (2) the evidence does not support the decision. For reasons we will explain, we will affirm the dispositional order.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Prior Section 602 Petition

On April 14, 2020, a petition was filed under section 602 alleging that the minor, then age 15, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c); count 1) and misdemeanor resisting an officer ( id. , § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The petition was based on an April 12, 2020 incident, in which the minor, who was on a bicycle, approached the victim, who was walking. The minor pointed a gun at the victim and threatened to kill him unless he dropped his wallet and cell phone. The victim gave up his cell phone and headphones. The minor initially fled but subsequently returned to the victim and demanded the phone's passcode. The police arrived, and the minor fled. When the police attempted to stop the minor on his bicycle, he proceeded to flee on foot. After a search, the minor was located in bushes. He was detained with the assistance of a police service dog. The police canvassed the area and located a "replica firearm." The firearm was a replica Glock "airsoft" or "BB" gun. The victim's phone was recovered but not his headphones.

On April 29, 2020, the minor admitted the allegations regarding the robbery and resisting an officer, and he acknowledged that the robbery was a section 707, subdivision (b) offense.

On May 13, 2020, the juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation with various terms and conditions, including that he serve 90 actual days on EMP, abide by a 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew, not possess alcohol or

3

any controlled or illegal substance, complete a drug/alcohol counseling program, complete 50 hours of public service, and complete a victim awareness workshop.

At a review hearing in mid-July 2020, the probation officer reported that the minor was enrolled in a drug and alcohol treatment program and was scheduled to attend weekly sessions.

B. Most Recent Section 602 Petition and Probation Violation Notice

According to reports by the probation officer, on September 21, 2020, the minor and his mother met with the probation officer due to the minor's continuous curfew violations and a citation that had been issued to the minor on September 3, 2020, for misdemeanor violations of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) [resisting an officer] and Health and Safety Code section 120295. Regarding the citation, the probation officer had a sheriff's report that indicated that the minor was one of three passengers in a stolen vehicle that evaded police at a high rate of speed (approximately 100 miles per hour) while driving recklessly through the city. Deputies stopped the vehicle using a spike strip. The minor subsequently fled on foot despite directives to remain in the vehicle. The minor was eventually detained by a "K-9 Officer." At the September 21, 2020 meeting with the probation officer, the minor declined to provide a statement regarding these new allegations, but he admitted violating curfew and admitted smoking marijuana and consuming alcohol on two occasions. The probation officer counseled the minor "extensively" regarding his behavior in the community and noncompliance with court orders. The probation officer instructed the minor to complete an additional 10 hours of public service work and advised that his compliance would be

4

monitored during the next few weeks. The minor and his mother were advised that if the minor failed to make positive progress, a probation violation notice would be filed.

On October 20, 2020, the minor and his mother again reported to the juvenile probation department. The minor was "counseled extensively once again." The minor's mother reported that the minor continued to leave the house on a nightly basis and would not return until 1:00 a.m. The minor indicated that he was still smoking marijuana daily and had consumed benzodiazepines (Xanax) on at least two occasions. The minor's mother indicated the minor was consistently using drugs despite being engaged in services, and that he possibly needed residential treatment. The probation officer advised that a notice of probation violation would be filed given the minor's continued negative behavior.

Later that same day, on October 20, 2020, about 5:30 p.m., the minor was observed driving a vehicle and wearing latex gloves and a mask. A female juvenile was a passenger in the vehicle. Sheriff deputies determined that the vehicle had been stolen. When the vehicle stopped, deputies approached the vehicle and detained the minor and the passenger. The minor was arrested for a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851.

On October 22, 2020, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed, alleging that the minor, then age 16, drove or took a vehicle without the owner's consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) on October 20, 2020. A section 777 notice was also filed, alleging that the minor violated the terms of his probation by (1) testing positive for marijuana ("THC") on September 21 and October 20, 2020; (2) using benzodiazepines (Xanax) on October 18, 2020, by his own admission; (3) consuming alcohol twice between May 13 and September 21, 2020, by his own admission; (4) violating curfew from October 6 to 19, 2020; and (5) being cited for two misdemeanor violations on September 3, 2020.

On October 23, 2020, on motion of the prosecutor, the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was amended to add count 2, alleging that the minor violated

5

Penal Code section 496d by receiving a motor vehicle and knowing it was stolen. The minor admitted the allegations in the newly added count 2 (Pen. Code, § 496d) and admitted the allegations in the probation violation notice. The juvenile court dismissed the remaining count in the section 602 petition. The matter was set for a disposition hearing on November 6, 2020.

C. The Probation Officer's Report Recommending a Ranch Commitment

In a report dated November 6, 2020, the probation officer indicated that the minor was in juvenile hall on "A-Level," which was for minors "who display positive behavior for a prolonged period of time on a consistent basis." The minor was also receiving "Behavioral Health Services as needed," and "[n]o concerns were reported." The minor had previously been enrolled in an independent studies program and had earned 47 high school credits towards his diploma. The minor's mother believed he should be held accountable for his behavior and was hopeful that his behavior would improve if he was placed on electronic monitoring again as he had performed well previously.

The probation officer reported that in October 2019, the minor had been issued a citation for a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, after he was found in a stolen vehicle with several other people smoking marijuana. The matter was rejected by the district attorney's office due to insufficient evidence. In February 2020, the minor was issued a citation for a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f) after he entered a high school's gate while under the influence. The minor admitted smoking" 'wax' or [m]arijuana hash oil." The referral for this incident was "[s]ettled at [i]ntake" on April 14, 2020, the same day the section 602 petition was filed regarding the more serious robbery and misdemeanor resisting an officer.

After being declared a ward of the court, the minor "initially adjusted well on [f]ormal [p]robation supervision." He successfully completed EMP, public service hours, a victim awareness workshop, and other terms and conditions, and he was engaged in treatment services for mental health and substance abuse. However, his "adjustment

6

slowly began to deteriorate" as he "began to use illicit substances, was out regularly nightly past curfew and has continued engaging in criminal behaviors despite services and counseling provided to him."

The probation officer conducted a "Juvenile Assessment Intervention System" (JAIS) interview in May 2020, and a reassessment on November 4, 2020. The later reassessment indicated that the minor was at high risk for recidivism, and that he fell within the "Limit Setting (LS) category." "LS youth characteristically have a fair degree of comfort with a criminal lifestyle. They often demonstrate a pattern of long-term involvement with criminal activities. . . . LS youth are motivated by power (manipulation), material gain, and the need for excitement. Drug and alcohol abuse is generally seen as a part of the delinquent lifestyle but for LS youth it is not a prime motivator. Their value structures are generally antisocial and sufficiently weak enough that they readily engage in delinquency for thrills. Notable is the level of manipulation that LS youth exhibit. While most boys exhibit manipulation to some degree, manipulation in LS boys masquerades as excessive compliance and superficial friendliness. As such, focus must remain on the youth's whereabouts, his associates, behavior, their adherence to the law, and the expectations of supervision."

The probation officer observed that the minor had demonstrated an ability to comply with probation services, as he had remained engaged in counseling services and successfully completed EMP and other terms and conditions. The probation officer believed, however that "said overly conforming and compliant behavior may have been an attempt to receive less scrutiny of his behavior." The probation officer further explained, "Unfortunately, services provided to the minor have not deterred him from participating in further criminal behavior. Although the Court and Probation has set clear

7

conditions and enforceable limits, the minor has chosen to disregard them despite attempts to encourage his compliance."

Regarding recommendations for disposition, the probation officer stated as follows:

"In exploring all dispositional options for [the minor], this officer considered another commitment on EMP. Although he has demonstrated the ability to remain compliant with EMP rules temporarily, EMP has not been a successful sanction in deterring future crimes. As previously mentioned, LS youth are known to conform to program rules and wait for reductions in supervision to resume illegal activities. This has proven to be true in assessing [the minor's] adjustment over the last six months given his decline in behavior following a successful commitment on EMP.

"This officer also considered the minor's candidacy for Wraparound services. Wraparound services are not appropriate at this time as [the minor] does not appear to be experiencing significant levels of chaos within the family home, nor does he appear to require a family centered, team approach to address complex needs including significant trauma or mental health concerns. Although parenting in the home appears to be ineffective at times, it appears to be mostly due to the minor's unresponsiveness and not the parent's unwillingness to supervise and provide proper boundaries. [The minor's] behavior appears to be mostly manipulative, impulsive, and influenced by negative peers.

"In exploring further dispositional options, this Officer assessed the minor's need for Placement services. At this time, [the minor] does not demonstrate a need for Placement services as there is no exigent need to provide rehabilitative services in an out-of-home placement due to an unstable home environment.

"Overall, [the minor] has demonstrated a pattern of impulsive behavior with a propensity to high risk situations as evidenced by a previous use of a firearm,

8

involvement in a high-speed police pursuit, and driving a stolen vehicle while out past curfew. Additionally, [the minor] has been out past curfew consistently while on Formal Probation Supervision. [The minor] has also engaged in consistent drug and alcohol abuse as evidenced by two positive urinalyses for [m]arijuana and his own admission of Xanax and [a]lcohol consumption in recent months. A combination of all these factors demonstrates a negligent attitude not only toward Court Orders and Probation's efforts, but also public safety.

"On May 13, 2020, during [the minor's] last dispositional [h]earing, the Court indicated [it was] inclined to allow the minor the opportunity to return to the community on EMP with outpatient services, but warned a commitment to the JRF [(Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility)] would be considered if he reoffended. Given [the minor's] overall decline and new arrests while on supervision, this Officer respectfully recommends the minor be [o]rdered to serve a 6-8 month commitment at the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility to ensure the safety of the community, to prevent re-victimization and victimization of others, and to maximize the [the minor's] potential in treatment and rehabilitative services. The JRF - Enhanced Ranch Program is a cognitive based rehabilitation program used to address the youth's criminogenic needs. [The minor] will be provided weekly [m]ental [h]ealth and [s]ubstance [u]se treatment services (co-occurring services), family counseling, daily group counseling, crisis mediation and intervention as needed, as well as weekly program evaluations and grading. The minor will be allotted the opportunity to earn weekend visitation with his family in addition to home furloughs. Further, the minor will enroll and participate in an academic program at Blue Ridge High School. The minor will enroll in core academic courses as well as Career Technical Education (CTE) courses leading to a high school diploma.

"[The minor] will also be able to address other issues including victim awareness/mediation in addition to other specialized and leadership/prosocial/life-skills programs. Following a commitment to the JRF, the minor will be provided re-entry

9

services and supervision provided by the Re-Entry Services Unit (RSU). [The minor] will be provided a transition plan that will provide community-based services specific to his needs, education/employment support, prosocial activities, and advocacy."

D. The November 6 Initial Disposition Hearing

At the initially scheduled disposition hearing on November 6, 2020, the juvenile court stated that it was "inclined to adopt" the probation officer's recommendations regarding a ranch commitment. The minor's counsel stated that he had received the recommendation that morning, that the recommendation for a ranch commitment "came as [a] surprise," and that he needed a continuance to prepare a "safety plan." The court continued the matter to November 20, 2020.

E. The Minor's Proposed Safety Plan Regarding Returning Home

In opposition to the probation officer's recommendation of ranch commitment, the minor submitted to the juvenile court a proposed written "[s]afety [p]lan" that contemplated him returning home. The safety plan was authored by Shelley Itelson, a social work intern, and approved by Harpreet Samra, a social worker, both of whom were from the public defender's office. In creating the safety plan, Itelson interviewed the minor by telephone on November 10, 2020, and her "colleague" interviewed the minor's mother "for interpretation services."

Itelson recommended that the minor be returned home on EMP along with "intensive Wraparound services through Uplift." Itelson's recommendation was based on a "Positive Youth Development (PYD) model." As explained by Itelson, "[t]he PYD model recognizes the six domains necessary for healthy youth development and positive outcomes: Family, Housing and Benefits, Physical and Mental Health, Educational Opportunity, Work and Vocational Training, Supportive Adults, and Structured Activities and Civic Engagement." According to Itelson, "children who tend to be the most successful usually have supports in these domains in their lives," while "[s]ystem

10

involved youth may have deficits in some or all of these areas." A case plan would address each domain that a minor or the minor's family struggles with.

Regarding the minor's circumstances, Itelson reported that the minor had two older sisters and a younger brother. The minor's parents divorced when the minor was 11 years old. The mother reported that the father seldom visited the children thereafter. When the father remarried and started a new family, the minor was upset and felt the father had abandoned his mother and siblings. While in high school, the minor attempted to reestablish a relationship with his father but was unsuccessful. The minor exhibited anger and indicated that he wanted to forget his father. Since being in custody, the minor had met with a therapist weekly and had found the therapy helpful.

Under the proposed safety plan, the minor would be returned home and under the care of his mother. Although the mother worked six days a week from 4:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., the minor's two older sisters, ages 20 and 25, also lived in the home and would assist in supervising the minor. Itelson recommended that the minor be placed on EMP "until the court sees fit." The minor would continue attending school through "distanced learning."

Itelson discussed the minor with Jennifer Baumgartner, a "fellow intern" at the public defender's office and an employee with Uplift Family Services. According to Itelson, "Uplift offers Wraparound Services. Although referrals for Wraparound services can only be made by probation, Ms. Baumgartner shared that they have openings and believes [the minor] could be an appropriate candidate for their services. Through Uplift, [the minor] would be assigned a Facilitator who would provide intensive case management services and facilitate weekly family team meetings. Additionally, [the minor] would be assigned a Family Specialist who would meet with [the minor] 2-3 times per week to support him with meeting his treatment goals. Uplift can also link [the minor] to individual therapy services and substance abuse support groups. Uplift will also provide [the minor's mother] with any support she may need." If the minor was not

11

accepted into Uplift's wraparound services, Itelson had "a supplemental plan," which apparently involved the minor's mother "contact[ing] Behavioral Health Services for therapy."

Itelson also recommended that the minor "get involved in community-based services through Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY). Through FLY, [the minor] would receive a mentor who could offer him prosocial activities to participate in while also supporting him in any[ ]way possible. At this time, Probation has the discretion to make a referral to FLY."

Itelson acknowledged that the minor began violating the conditions of his probation after he completed EMP. She believed, however, that "the supportive services he had were minimal" when the "ankle monitor was removed." Itelson believed that "intensive" wraparound services through Uplift would "bridge this gap and provide [the minor] and [his mother] the supportive services needed for his success."

F. The November 20 Continued Disposition Hearing

At the continued disposition hearing on November 20, 2020, the juvenile court indicated that it had reviewed the probation officer's report and the safety plan presented by Samra, the "public defender social worker." The court stated, "I am inclined to follow the ranch recommendations primarily because it seems like the things we tried to do outside of something more restrictive have not worked. I am not sure there is a way to accomplish what needs to be done here which strikes me as fairly heavy needs without doing something like the ranch. [¶] I note that not only are there drug issues and physical safety issues, but also an educational issue. You have 47 of 220 units you need to graduate which means that you haven't been making much progress along the educational front, but my mind is not set in concrete. [¶] I am only announcing what is an initial thought, and I am prepared to hear additional arguments, but the arguments that will be most useful would be how I could do something less than the ranch that would get us to a good place."

12

The minor's counsel requested a contested disposition hearing regarding the probation officer's recommendation for a ranch commitment. Counsel explained that the minor did "really well" on EMP but "things began to deteriorate" when EMP ended. Counsel argued that the minor had "needs" that he "never [had] been given the chance to be addressed." According to counsel, the safety plan addressed the minor's needs and provided him with support by "connecting with FLY to give him a mentor" and "connecting with WRAP services." The recommendation for a ranch commitment, however, "skip[ped] over WRAP." While in custody, the minor was on "A level" and "doing well." Counsel argued that with the safety plan, "there [was] a very strong middle ground that provide[d] all these services that [the minor] responds well to."

The juvenile court set the matter for a contested disposition hearing on December 3, 2020, expressing "interest[]" in "hear[ing] the testimony as to options." The court explained the continuance to the minor as follows: "[T]he law tells me I have to do two things. I have to try to find the least restrictive way to get you to a better place. That is one end of this continuum, and I have to protect society which is at the other end of the continuum. And somewhere on that line, I have to make a call. Once I hear everything, I will make that call."

G. The December 3 Contested Disposition Hearing

The contested disposition hearing was held on December 3, 2020, by a different judge than the one who had presided over the prior hearings. The court heard testimony from (1) the probation officer to whom the minor was assigned and (2) Itelson, the social work intern from the public defender's office.

1. The minor's assigned probation officer

The probation officer testified that she had worked with juveniles as a probation officer for approximately 12 years. The minor had been assigned to her since his first section 602 petition for robbery and misdemeanor resisting an officer. The minor successfully completed 90 days on EMP in August, but "his behavior started to decline"

13

approximately two weeks later. The probation officer met with the minor and his mother on September 21, because the mother reported that the minor was leaving past curfew again and was not doing well at home. In addition, the minor had received a citation for a violation of Penal Code section 148 based on a September 3rd incident in which he was a passenger in vehicle that fled from police at a high rate of speed. Rather than forwarding the citation to the district attorney's office, the probation officer "decided to handle it informally, and give [the minor] the opportunity to improve his behavior." She counseled the minor and gave him 10 hours of community service. She also informed him that a violation of probation would be filed if he failed to improve his behavior.

After the minor failed to improve, the probation officer met with him again in October. She advised him that a violation of probation would be filed. That night, the minor was found in a stolen vehicle. The minor was detained and had remained in custody.

While in custody, the minor displayed positive behavior. Although the probation officer had been given the discretion to release the minor on EMP pending disposition, the probation officer chose not to. The probation officer believed the minor was "a threat to public safety since he was inclined to participate and get himself involved in a high risk situation like a high speed police pursuit, being in a stolen vehicle at night." The probation officer also indicated that, unlike with "GPS," when a minor is on EMP, the probation department only knows when a minor leaves the perimeter of the home and does not otherwise know where the minor is located.

For the current disposition, the probation officer recommended that the minor be committed to a juvenile rehabilitation facility for six to eight months to prevent the victimization of others in the community and to "maximize" the minor's potential for rehabilitation with services on site, meaning in a "structured therapeutic environment." The services would include mental health and substance abuse services, family counseling, and daily group counseling. "He would be provided support from a

14

probation counselor, crisis mediation and intervention as needed, as well as weekly program evaluations and grading." In addition to "maximiz[ing] his potential for rehabilitation" with "consistent supervision" to prevent him from, for example, fleeing at night, the probation officer also believed that the ranch commitment provided "sufficient accountability for his overall behavior since [the first section 602 petition]."

The probation officer testified that if the juvenile court released the minor, "[n]ot much would be different" with respect to the services that had already been tried. The probation officer believed the counseling and other services at the ranch would be more consistent and more intensive and suitable for his needs than in an outside setting.

The probation officer acknowledged that the minor's recent admissions to violating probation and possessing a stolen vehicle involved less serious conduct than the earlier robbery, which was a section 707, subdivision (b) offense. The probation officer testified, however, that at the disposition hearing for the robbery, the juvenile court told the minor that it would adopt the probation officer's recommendation of "EMP with outpatient," but that if the minor reoffended, the court would consider a ranch commitment. The probation officer stated that she "wanted to give [the minor] the opportunity to remain in the community, to supervise and to give him the structure and incremental responses to his misbehavior before we consider him to the ranch." The minor continued to misbehave by using drugs and alcohol, not abiding by household rules, and had two new arrests. The minor "did not take the opportunity to remain in the community serious, . . . nor did he consider the counseling of the Court." The probation officer explained, "[G]iven all of the counseling and opportunities we've given him, it has not detoured him from committing future crimes."

The probation officer acknowledged that individuals at the ranch had recently "tested positive" for the coronavirus, and that the ranch was closed "due to the disinfecting and ensuring everything goes back to safe operating." She believed, however, that the delay in the minor's transportation to the ranch would be "short," and

15

that he would continue to receive services in juvenile hall without any "lapses" in treatment. The probation officer was not aware of any specific decrease in services at the ranch while minors were still housed there, and she assumed that any decrease in services would be temporary.

The services that the minor was receiving after the first section 602 petition included "co-occurring services which is mental health and substance abuse services" based on an assessment that he had received. After completing EMP, those co-occurring services continued with weekly or biweekly therapy sessions with a clinician. The probation officer did not consider changing or adding to the minor's therapy. Although the minor's behavior deteriorated after he completed EMP, he continued to attend his therapy sessions. The clinician indicated to the probation officer that the minor attended regularly, participated, was engaged, and did well. A decision to increase services would be up to the clinician, not the probation officer, and the probation officer was attempting to respond to the minor's misbehavior first. The minor also engaged in pro-social activity by completing his public service work. The probation officer did not believe a mentorship for the minor was "necessary" at the time although the probation officer acknowledged that it was appropriate for the minor to have an older male mentor. The probation officer did refer the minor for 10 additional hours of community service, but the minor did not complete the hours.

The probation officer considered "WRAP" services for the minor and conducted a screening with the "IPC coordinator." All the screening information came from the probation officer, which was the "typical[]" practice for screening cases. The probation officer testified that, based on the screening, it was determined that WRAP services were "not appropriate." The minor "was found to be not appropriate for WRAP due to the absence of significant trauma history, mental health history, and general instability in the home. He appeared to be stable. He appeared to have a stable home environment with his mom." The probation officer testified, "In my experience, from what I could tell

16

from [the minor's] pattern of behavior and social history, he didn't really have a significant trauma history, mental health history, or general instability in his home. Nothing that required a WRAP team to come in and stabilize his home life, and . . . support maybe other types of dysfunction that were going on. His mom and sister . . . appeared to have a very stable home." The probation officer further explained that, although the minor was disobeying his mother, it "wasn't because she was not exercising appropriate care and control in setting boundaries. It was because he was just refusing." The probation officer was aware that the minor's father leaving the family was a traumatic event for the minor, but the probation officer believed the event did not require WRAP services. The probation officer explained, "I don't think he required that high level of need. I think the co-occurring services which address the mental health concerns that may make -- perhaps he was having depression, anxiety, anger -- could have been addressed through the co-occurring services, and the clinician we provided him."

2. Itelson, the social work intern from the public defender's office

Itelson testified that she was a "social work intern" for Samra, a social worker at the public defender's office. Itelson was pursuing a master's degree in social work and expected to graduate in the spring of 2022. She had previously worked for (1) San Francisco County's Log Cabin Ranch for five years and (2) the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice as a clinical case manager for eight years in their "WRAP program." In the latter position she did "detention diversion advocacy work along with re-entry services."

As a social work intern in the public defender's office, she provided services for the public defender and the public defendant's clients. Her responsibilities included (1) interviewing and assessing clients and their families and (2) developing individualized case plans based on "bio-pyscho-social assessments." Upon being referred to the minor's case, Itelson talked to him approximately once a week, four or five times, for 30 minutes to an hour sometimes. She talked to him about his family

17

history and trauma, substance abuse, making better choices in life, the WRAP services that were being recommended, and the potential consequences if he was given the opportunity but did not follow the rules. Itelson's colleague spoke to the minor's mother, who spoke Spanish, regarding the trauma the minor had suffered.

Itelson testified that there were services and support in the community that would be effective in rehabilitating the minor. Specifically, Itelson believed the minor "would benefit from the intensive services from Wraparound." In reaching this conclusion, she had talked to a colleague who worked for Uplift Family Services and who was also interning at the public defender's office. Itelson explained that only the probation department could make referrals to Uplift Family Services. However, Itelson gave her colleague "some basic information about [the minor]," and the colleague thought the minor "would be a fit candidate for WRAP services."

Itelson and the colleague discussed the WRAP services provided by Uplift Family Services. The WRAP services included "a facilitator who does intensive case management services" and weekly "Child and Family Team meetings." The family meetings would include the minor, his mother, and most likely his sisters. The minor would also be assigned to a family specialist who would meet with the minor two to three times a week. After the minor was assessed, there would also be "linkages through substance abuse groups, any individual counseling, and any other services that are deemed appropriate."

Itelson believed that although the ranch and WRAP were "evidence based" programs, WRAP services were more "intensive" than the ranch. She testified that WRAP was an "all inclusive program," and that its "therapeutic model . . . works with the minor, the family, in all areas of his life, school, mentorship, counseling, substance abuse, individual counseling, [and] family counseling." Itelson stated that WRAP services would be a "big increase in the therapeutic services from what he was receiving

18

before." She testified that with WRAP, someone would be meeting with the minor at home two, three, or four times per week.

In addition to WRAP services, Itelson believed the minor "would benefit from a mentor through . . . FLY, because young men really benefit from having a positive male role model . . . ." Itelson also recommended that the minor be on EMP, and that his mother or sisters supervise him at home.

Itelson testified that "youth benefit most when they're receiving services in the home versus when they're locked away dealing with the additional stressors that come with it, and also taking into consideration the trauma informed care model." She believed that the minor was "exhibiting maladaptive coping skills," and that WRAP services would "teach him more appropriate coping skills." Regarding disruption in the minor's education by going to the ranch, Itelson testified that "[a]ny disruption in a youth's life creates additional trauma," and that "a disruption could potentially lead to further criminality rather than rehabilitation." Further, regarding the lack of a male role model in the minor's life, going to the ranch "could be harmful to him to entrench [him] with possible other negative influences from the other kids who [were] there."

3. Argument by the parties

After hearing testimony from the two witnesses, the juvenile court heard argument from the parties. The prosecutor contended that the court should following the probation department's recommendation of a ranch commitment. According to the prosecutor, "all other avenues ha[d] been tried with the minor, and he ha[d] rejected them all."

The minor's counsel contended that the court should consider less restrictive alternatives that would be effective and appropriate, and that here, "EMP with support services would be effective." Counsel argued that the minor had previously been compliant on EMP; that when supervision ended, his behavior deteriorated; but that upon being detained in juvenile hall, he was receiving more services and his behavior was "exemplary again." Counsel contended that the minor "responds well to the support

19

when it is given to him," and for that reason, "he needs support in the community such as WRAP, and a FLY mentor . . . ." Counsel argued that "[t]hese less restrictive alternatives have never been given to him," and that "when he does get support, it is effective." Regarding the probation officer's testimony that the minor did not qualify for WRAP services, counsel contended that the minor "suffered immense trauma by his father leaving that has caused him to reach out to negative influences in his life." Based on Itelson's testimony, "WRAP is available" to the minor and "would be helpful to him." Counsel contended that this rehabilitation "would go towards stabilizing his home, giving him a positive mentor, [and] addressing his drug issues," which in turn would address public safety concerns, because rehabilitation and public safety were "tied at the hip." On the other hand, a ranch commitment would not give him the same positive influence that he could get in the community, it would be disruptive to his education, and services at the ranch were currently suspended.

4. The juvenile court's ruling

In ruling on the matter, the juvenile court stated as follows: "This certainly presents a challenging question for the Court. The Court appreciates and takes seriously the testimony of Ms. Itelson regarding her thoughts, however, the Court is also very concerned about what Probation has put in the report. [¶] The fact that there was a prior admonition to [the minor], the judge letting him know the next possible avenue of correction would be the ranch, is significant to the Court, and the Court is persuaded by the comment in the probation report that [the minor's] overly conforming compliant behavior may have been actually an attempt to receive less scrutiny as opposed to evidence that he is benefiting significantly. [¶] So it appears to the Court perhaps a greater level of services such as could be provided at the ranch is what is appropriate. So I am not sure where the Court goes from here. [¶] At the bottom, the Court has received, reviewed and considered the probation officer's report. I considered her testimony here on the stand. I considered the testimony of Ms. Itelson, and it is my decision to adopt the

20

recommendations of the probation officer as have been written in the report." The juvenile court continued the minor as a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the Santa Clara County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities' enhanced ranch program for six to eight months.

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Parties' Contentions

The minor contends that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the ranch because (1) the court failed to exercise its discretion in making the decision and (2) the evidence does not support the decision. The minor requests that the dispositional order be reversed, and that the matter be remanded.

The Attorney General contends that the trial court properly exercised its discretion, and that substantial evidence supports the minor's commitment to the ranch program.

B. Law

When a minor is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, "the court may make any reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor." (§ 727, subd. (a)(1).) The court has a wide range of options at disposition, including probation or a commitment to a county home, ranch, or camp. (§ 730, subd. (a)(1); In re Eddie M . (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 488 ( Eddie M .).)

In determining the proper disposition in a case, the juvenile court "shall consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor's previous delinquent history." (§ 725.5.) Consistent with the purposes of the juvenile court law, the court must also consider (1) the protection and safety of the public, and (2) rehabilitation of the minor through care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with the minor's best interest, holds the minor accountable for his or her behavior, and is appropriate for the circumstances. (§ 202, subds. (a), (b) & (d).) Regarding "guidance, "

21

the court may consider punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court law. ( Id. , subd. (b); see id. , subd. (e) [" 'punishment' means the imposition of sanctions," but "does not include retribution"].) The court may consider a restrictive commitment as a means of protecting the public safety. ( In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1396 ( Michael D. ); In re Christopher B. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1564.)

As explained by the California Supreme Court, "[u]nder section 202, juvenile proceedings are primarily 'rehabilitative' [citation], and punishment in the form of 'retribution' is disallowed [citation]. Within these bounds, the court has broad discretion to choose probation and/or various forms of custodial confinement in order to hold juveniles accountable for their behavior, and to protect the public. [Citation.]" ( In re Eddie M. , supra , 31 Cal.4th at p. 507.) "Given these aims, and absent any contrary provision, juvenile placements need not follow any particular order under section 602 and section 777, including from the least to the most restrictive. [Citations.] Nor does the court necessarily abuse its discretion by ordering the most restrictive placement before other options have been tried. [Citations.]" ( Ibid. ; accord, John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 184.) "The statutory scheme governing juvenile delinquency is designed to give the court 'maximum flexibility to craft suitable orders aimed at rehabilitating the particular ward before it.' [Citation.] Flexibility is the hallmark of juvenile court law . . . ." ( In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411.)

We review a juvenile court's dispositional order for abuse of discretion. (See Michael D. , supra , 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1395.) "We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.]" ( Ibid. ) A reviewing court must examine the evidence at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the juvenile court law. ( Ibid. )

22

C. Analysis

The minor contends that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the ranch because (1) the court failed to exercise its discretion in making the decision and (2) the evidence does not support the decision. We reject both contentions.

1. Exercise of discretion

First, the record reflects that the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion after considering the probation officer's report, the testimony by the probation officer, and the testimony by the social work intern from the public defender's office. The court determined that "a greater level of services such as could be provided at the ranch is what is appropriate." Based on the probation officer's report and the testimony of the witnesses, the court ultimately ruled, "[I]t is my decision to adopt the recommendations of the probation officer as have been written in the report."

The minor contends that the juvenile court "did not understand its obligations when imposing the disposition." According to the minor, the court "concluded that because [he] had previously been admonished that he would go to the Ranch Program if he misbehaved then that was the appropriate disposition," and that the probation officer "testified to the same thought process in reaching her conclusion that the Ranch Program was the correct disposition."

The record does not support the minor's contentions that either the probation officer's recommendation, or the juvenile court's ruling regarding a ranch commitment, was solely because of the prior warning the minor had received. The probation officer testified at the contested disposition hearing that, although the minor engaged in misbehavior after the disposition on the robbery, including by violating probation and being cited for new offenses, she gave "him the opportunity to remain in the community, to supervise and to give him the structure and incremental responses to his misbehavior before we consider[ed] him to the ranch." The minor, however, "did not take the opportunity to remain in the community serious . . . ." Nonetheless, as stated in the

23

probation officer's report, the probation officer still "explor[ed] all dispositional options for [the minor]," including considering the minor for another commitment on EMP and for "Wraparound services." Ultimately, "[g]iven [the minor's] overall decline and new arrests while on supervision," the probation officer recommended a ranch commitment "to ensure the safety of the community . . . and to maximize the [minor's] potential in treatment and rehabilitative services."

As we have explained, the record reflects that the juvenile court considered the probation officer's report and all the testimony at the disposition hearing in reaching its disposition. In considering the evidence at disposition, the court could properly consider "the minor's previous delinquent history" (§ 725.5), which included the previous robbery, the numerous probation violations that occurred subsequently, and the most recent section 602 petition involving a new offense. The court could also properly consider a disposition that would hold the minor "accountable for [his] behavior." (§ 202, subd. (b); see In re Eddie M. , supra , 31 Cal.4th at p. 507.) Although the court at the disposition hearing referred to the "prior admonition" that had been given to the minor about the ranch being "the next possible avenue of correction," the court did not indicate that this was the sole basis for its decision to commit the minor to the ranch, or that it otherwise believed it was obligated to order a ranch commitment due to the prior warning given the minor. To the contrary, the court ultimately referred to the "greater level of services such as could be provided at the ranch" as being "appropriate" in this case. The record thus reflects that the court considered all the evidence before it, took into account appropriate factors, and properly exercised its discretion based on all the evidence and relevant factors in reaching the decision to commit the minor to the ranch.

The minor also contends that "[i]t . . . appears the juvenile court failed to give proper consideration to the fact the Ranch Program was closed due to COVID protocols." We are not persuaded by the minor's contention that the court failed to give "proper consideration" to the issue. The probation officer testified that she had been advised that

24

the closure of the ranch was not permanent. The minor's stay at juvenile hall was therefore "temporary" until his transfer to the ranch. Although no date for reopening the ranch had been provided to the probation officer at the time of the minor's disposition hearing, the probation officer testified that she believed the shutdown was "just for disinfection and testing purposes." On this record, the court had no reason to believe that the closure of the ranch program was anything other than a temporary closure for disinfection and testing, and that the ranch would soon reopen.

We are also not persuaded by the minor's contention that the juvenile court "failed to give any, or proper, consideration to the fact that [he] spent 45 days in juvenile hall awaiting the disposition hearing." The minor acknowledges that the juvenile court and the prosecutor were not responsible for the delay. The minor nevertheless argues that court did not properly consider that his behavior in juvenile hall was "excellent." In committing the minor to the ranch, the court implicitly rejected the minor's argument below, and here on appeal, that his good behavior in juvenile hall-a restrictive setting- demonstrated that being returned home on "EMP with support services would be effective." As we next explain in connection with the minor's second argument on appeal, substantial evidence supports the court's decision to commit the minor to the structured therapeutic setting of the ranch program rather than returning him home on EMP with services.

2. Substantial evidence

We determine that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's decision to commit the minor to the ranch. After admitting that he committed second degree robbery and misdemeanor resisting an officer, the minor had been placed on EMP for 90 days and was required to complete public service hours and a drug/alcohol counseling program,

25

among other requirements. After completing EMP, the minor, within a two-month period, used marijuana and benzodiazepines (Xanax), consumed alcohol, regularly violated curfew, and was cited for a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1). Despite being counseled twice by the probation officer, the minor proceeded to commit the offense of receiving a stolen vehicle. As the probation officer observed, the prior disposition that included EMP and services "ha[d] not deterred him from participating in further criminal behavior."

The probation officer considered a variety of "dispositional options for [the minor]," including another commitment on EMP and wraparound services. However, "EMP ha[d] not been a successful sanction in deterring future crimes," and the probation officer found that the minor was not an appropriate candidate for wraparound services. The probation officer further observed that, "[o]verall, [the minor] has demonstrated a pattern of impulsive behavior with a propensity to high risk situations as evidenced by a previous use of a firearm, involvement in a high-speed police pursuit, and driving a stolen vehicle while out past curfew. Additionally, [the minor] has been out past curfew consistently while on Formal Probation Supervision. [The minor] has also engaged in consistent drug and alcohol abuse as evidenced by two positive urinalyses for [m]arijuana and his own admission of Xanax and [a]lcohol consumption in recent months. A combination of all these factors demonstrates a negligent attitude not only toward Court Orders and Probation's efforts, but also public safety."

The probation officer ultimately recommended a commitment to the ranch based on the minor's "overall decline and new arrests while on supervision," "to ensure the safety of the community," and "to maximize the [the minor's] potential in treatment and rehabilitative services." In the ranch program, the minor would receive treatment services for substance use, counseling, an academic program leading to a high school diploma, and prosocial programs, among other programs. At the contested disposition hearing, the probation officer explained that a commitment to the ranch would provide

26

the minor with a "structured therapeutic environment," which would "maximize" the minor's potential for rehabilitation with services on site while at the same time prevent the victimization of others in the community. The probation officer believed the counseling and other services at the ranch would be more consistent and more intensive and suitable for the minor's needs than in an outside setting. The probation officer was also not aware of any specific decrease in services at the ranch due to the coronavirus while youth were still housed at the ranch.

The juvenile court, in adopting the probation officer's recommendation of a ranch commitment, stated that "it appears . . . a greater level of services such as could be provided at the ranch is what is appropriate." Based on the record before the juvenile court, we find no abuse of discretion in the court choosing a commitment to the ranch over the recommendation by the social work intern from the public defender's office, who recommended that the minor return home on EMP, with services through Uplift Family Services, and a mentor through FLY. Based on the information in the probation officer's report and the testimony by the probation officer, the court could reasonably determine that committing the minor to the ranch, where he would receive "a greater level" of therapeutic services in a structured environment, rather than returning him home on EMP again with services, was necessary for public safety and was an appropriate disposition to hold the minor accountable for his continued misbehavior on probation and for committing a new violation of the law.

On appeal, the minor acknowledges that his behavior "deteriorated" following completion of EMP, that he had two meetings with the probation officer, that he was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle after the second meeting, and that "[c]learly, [his] behavior was deserving of punishment at the disposition hearing." He contends, however, that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the ranch "because there was no evidence the less restrictive disposition of local custody/detention with WRAP services would be ineffective or inappropriate."

27

As we have explained, the juvenile court was entitled to credit the probation officer's evaluation that the ranch would provide more intensive services than the services that the minor would receive while at home and in the community. The court also properly sought to hold the minor accountable for his continued misbehavior and new law violation after he had completed EMP the first time. The record also amply supports an implied finding by the court that public safety concerns warranted the minor being placed at the ranch rather than being released on EMP again.

The minor next challenges the probation officer's testimony regarding him not being an appropriate candidate for wraparound services. According to the minor, (1) "it is unclear what role the IPC coordinator played in determining whether [the minor] was appropriate for the WRAP program," (2) "the only information the IPC coordinator had was that information provided by [the probation officer]," (3) "there is no evidence in this record that [the probation officer] had the education, training, or experience to form such an opinion" based on Evidence Code section 720, subdivision (a), and (4) the probation officer "never discussed with a WRAP program whether [the minor] would benefit from the program." The minor contends that "[t]he likely result is that [the minor] was determined ineligible for the WRAP program simply based on [the probation officer's] conclusions which, because the record does not establish her qualifications to form that conclusion, is not substantial evidence."

We are not persuaded by the minor's argument. "[T]he Wraparound service program was started in 1997 to provide 'family-based service alternatives to group home care using intensive, individualized services . . . . The target population for the program

28

is children in or at risk of placement in group homes . . . . [Citation.]'" ( In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30, 41, fn.2.) In this case, regarding an out-of-home placement, the probation officer stated in her report, "[T]his Officer assessed the minor's need for Placement services. At this time, [the minor] does not demonstrate a need for Placement services as there is no exigent need to provide rehabilitative services in an out-of-home placement due to an unstable home environment." The probation officer's report and testimony indicate that the probation officer nevertheless carefully considered the minor's candidacy for wraparound services. However, based on a screening with an IPC coordinator pursuant to the probation department's typical practice, it was determined that the minor was not an appropriate candidate for such services. The probation officer explained that the minor "was found to be not appropriate for WRAP due to the absence of significant trauma history, mental health history, and general instability in the home. . . . He appeared to have a stable home environment with his mom." The probation officer, who had more than a decade of experience in the position, also testified, "In my experience, from what I could tell from [the minor's] pattern of behavior and social history, he didn't really have a significant trauma history, mental health history, or general instability in his home. Nothing that required a WRAP team to come in and stabilize his home life, and . . . support maybe other types of dysfunction that were going on. His mom and sister . . . appeared to have a very stable home." The probation officer further explained that, although the minor was disobeying his mother, it "wasn't because she was not exercising appropriate care and control in setting boundaries. It was because he was just refusing." The probation officer was aware that the minor's father leaving the family was a traumatic event for the minor, but the probation officer believed that the high level of need warranted for WRAP services were not present.

On appeal, we understand the minor to argue that it is unclear what the IPC coordinator's role was in determining whether the minor was an appropriate candidate for wraparound services, that the probation officer should have talked directly with a

29

program that offered wraparound services, and that the probation officer was not qualified to offer an opinion about whether the minor was an appropriate candidate based on Evidence Code section 720, subdivision (a). For the first time in his reply brief on appeal, the minor also argues that there was no testimony "about what would, or would not, constitute a major trauma for the WRAP program guidelines." However, these are issues that the minor should have raised in an objection to the probation officer's testimony or on cross-examination with the probation officer. (See ibid. ["Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown before the witness may testify as an expert"].) The probation officer, who had been in that position for more than a decade, testified that the typical practice was for a probation officer to provide information to the IPC coordinator to screen a minor for wraparound services. The probation officer followed that practice in this case. The social work intern from the public defender's office acknowledged that the referral for wraparound services must come from the probation department. On this record, the juvenile court could properly rely on the probation officer's testimony that the minor was not an appropriate candidate for wraparound services. Regarding the minor's contention that the IPC coordinator only had the information that was provided by the probation officer, the minor fails to establish that the information provided by the probation officer was incomplete or otherwise inadequate.

The minor also argues for the first time in his reply brief that the probation officer "recommended WRAP services for [him]" after he completed the ranch program, which the minor suggests is inconsistent with the probation officer's position that he was not eligible for such services in the first place. The record, however, does not reflect a recommendation by the probation officer for WRAP services following completion of the ranch. Instead, the record reflects that the probation officer recommended that the minor, "upon release from the [ranch program], shall receive intensive home based family services known as Wraparound services or Probation Continuum of Services to Reentry

30

(PRO-CSR) based on eligibility and assignment by the assigned Probation Officer . . . ." (Italics added.)

In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's decision to commit the minor to the ranch program, that the court properly exercised its discretion, and that no abuse of discretion has been shown.

IV. DISPOSITION

The dispositional order of December 3, 2020, is affirmed.

31

WE CONCUR: ELIA, ACTING P.J. WILSON, J.

32

---------

Notes:

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Health and Safety Code section 120295 pertains to violations of duties by local health officers. The references in the record to Health and Safety Code section 120295 appear to be erroneous although it is not apparent which code section the probation officer intended to refer to. The minor on appeal indicates that this issue is "not significant," which we understand to mean that the issue is not relevant to his contentions on appeal.

The probation officer testified at the contested disposition hearing that JAIS "is a risk and assessment tool with proven supervision strategies to provide case planning . . ., treatment and supervision."

The probation officer described wraparound services as "intensive home based family services."

The record reflects that, by the time of a restitution setting hearing on February 5, 2021, which was approximately two months after the disposition hearing, the minor had already been placed at the ranch.

Evidence Code section 720, subdivision (a) states: "A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he [or she] has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him [or her] as an expert on the subject to which his [or her] testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown before the witness may testify as an expert."

---------