Skip to content
Name: In re Carlos H.
Case #: B268893
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/18/2016

Restraining order prohibiting delinquent minor from contacting sexual battery victim either directly or indirectly, and providing stay-away order, is valid “other order” which may be issued by the juvenile court. The prosecution filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging two counts of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.5, subd. (e)(1)) against the 15-year-old minor. Prior to adjudication, the juvenile court issued a restraining order prohibiting the minor from contacting the victim either directly or indirectly and ordering him to stay 100 yards away from her. On appeal the minor argued the juvenile court abused its discretion by using a JV-255 form to issue the order, because the form does not list or permit such restrictions against a delinquent minor. Held: Affirmed. Where a section 602 petition has been filed, the court may issue restraining orders as provided in section Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.630(a)). Such orders must be prepared on form JV-255 (rule 5.630(f)(2)). The juvenile court has broad discretion to issue restraining orders to protect a number of classes of people, including the minor, other children in the minor’s household, the child’s parent or guardian, etc. Section 213.5, subdivision (b) provides a specific list of enjoinable conduct. However, when the child is the person whose conduct must be restrained, the Legislature did not list the types of conduct that may be restrained as it did for the other classes of protected persons, but provided a more generalized list allowing the court to enjoin the minor from contacting, threatening, stalking or disturbing the peace of any person who might be at risk from the minor’s conduct (Pen. Code, § 213.5, subd. (b)). Applying principles of statutory construction, there is no reason to exclude the indirect contact or stay-away orders from possible orders. This interpretation effectuates the purpose of the law—to protect both minors and their victims, as well as members of the public at large.

The full opinion is on the court’s website here: