Juvenile court erred by issuing a two-year restraining order without providing minor with sufficient notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The minor and six others approached three other minors, uttered a gang phrase, and robbed them. The People filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging that the minor committed robbery with firearm and gang enhancements. At a hearing to set the jurisdictional hearing date, the minor was released from home detention, over the prosecutor’s objection. The prosecution then requested and was granted a two-year restraining order precluding the minor from contacting the victims, over the minor’s objection for lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The minor appealed. Held: Reversed. Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5 provides for two types of restraining orders in juvenile cases: (1) a temporary restraining may be issued (up to a maximum of 25 days) without notice or hearing (subdivision (c)), and (2) a restraining order may be issued after notice and a hearing for up to three years (subdivision (d)). A temporary restraining order must be issued on form JV-250 and other restraining orders must be issued on form JV-255. The restraining order issued in this case was not temporary because it exceeded 25 days and was not issued on form JV-250 (instead it was issued on form JV-255). The Court of Appeal determined that California Rules of Court, rule 5.630, which addresses issuing temporary restraining orders with no notice, was not inconsistent with section 213.5, but, if it were, the statute controls. Additionally, the minor’s right to due process entitled him to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before a restraining order could be issued for a period longer than 25 days.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B271319.PDF