Skip to content
Name: In re J.C.
Case #: A154389
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 03/28/2019

Trial court's commitment of delinquent juvenile to county Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) without ordering a fixed term of commitment did not improperly delegate authority to the probation officer to determine the minor's term of commitment. J.C. admitted the allegations in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition that he committed a carjacking and used a gun. He was declared a ward of the juvenile court, committed to YOTP for all its phases, and ordered to successfully complete the program. The juvenile court did not order a fixed term of commitment, instead ordering the maximum custody time allowed,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Nichole H.
Case #: A143734
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 02/16/2016

Juvenile court abused its discretion by placing delinquent minor in a group home a substantial distance away from her father's residence. The minor participated in an assault and beating of another minor. She admitted an allegation that she committed an assault by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). At the dispositional hearing the minor was ordered removed from her father's custody and detained in juvenile hall pending placement. The minor resided in Contra Costa County. In determining appropriate placement, the court considered several alternatives that were within 30 to 40 miles…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.C.
Case #: C073242
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/10/2014

Where a juvenile court's order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that the minor committed robbery and other offenses. He was not removed from parental custody but was released on home probation. Nevertheless, the court set a maximum confinement term. On appeal, the minor argued that this was error. Held: Maximum confinement term stricken. In In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, the Third District Court of Appeal held…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Oscar A.
Case #: D062817
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/28/2013

Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering out-of-state placement of a minor where in-state facilities were not adequately addressing the minor's needs and the higher level of care offered at the out-of-state facility would best serve his interests. After being declared a ward of the juvenile court in 2009, the minor admitted violating his probation on no fewer than ten times. He was initially placed with family but when he continued to violate conditions of probation, he was eventually ordered into out-of-home placements in California. Again, he was unsuccessful and, ultimately, the court placed him in an out-of-state…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.S.
Case #: A135214
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/08/2013
Subsequent History: Ordered not published

Juvenile could not be "temporarily housed" at DJF because there was no evidence of a contract between DJF and the county. In 2009, 12-year-old J.S. was adjudicated a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on a petition that alleged lewd and lascivious acts with a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). Following an unsuccessful period of probation, the court committed J.S. to the custody of DJF for a maximum term of eight years. The Supreme Court then decided In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, which interpreted sections…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Robert M.
Case #: F064841
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/29/2013

Housing of minor at the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) following enactment of Welfare and Institutions Code section 1752.16 is permissible and does not violate either ex post facto or equal protection considerations. Minor entered no contest admissions to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging violations of Penal Code sections 288, subdivision (a), and 289, subdivision (j), and was initially declared a ward and committed to DJF. After the Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, the juvenile court's commitment order was reversed. On remand, the court committed minor to juvenile…

View Full Summary