Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

The People filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that Carlos H. committed two counts of sexual battery against a female high school classmate. Prior to adjudication, the juvenile court issued a restraining order against Carlos prohibiting him from, among other things, contacting the victim through a third party, and directing him to stay 100 yards away from the victim. The court was unpersuaded by the premise inherent in Carlos’s argument that the Legislature intended that persons threatened by a minor should enjoy less protection than persons threatening the minor. The court held that the order form used by the juvenile court to enter the order, including the "other orders" in section 9 of the form, was a reasoned and reasonable response by the juvenile court to Carlos’s conduct and the other relevant facts of the case (e.g., the fact that Carlos and the victim no longer attend the same school). The court also concluded that the order was entirely consistent with the public policy objectives underlying the juvenile delinquency laws generally and section 213.5 specifically. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order because the juvenile court’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. View "In re Carlos H." on Justia Law

Contra Costa County Children and Family Services filed petitions concerning P.W., then 12 years old, and his sister, M.W., 11, alleging Mother caused P.W. serious physical harm during an altercation and her untreated mental condition impaired her ability to adequately parent. The children reported that they did not feel safe. Family members and close friends reported concern for the children’s well-being and had asked Mother to seek treatment, suspecting she might be bipolar. The children were placed in foster homes. Mother was granted supervised visitation. The disposition report advised that Mother had several previous dependency cases since 1994. Her parental rights to two other children had been terminated. There was an earlier dependency case involving P.W. and M.W., which concluded in reunification. Mother did not appear at a continued permanency review hearing 18 months later. The court found that returning the children to Mother’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children’s safety and physical or emotional well-being, remarking this was “not even a close call.” It found Mother had been offered reasonable reunification services and declined to continue the matter, noting that the children still feared Mother and opposed visitation. The court scheduled a hearing for terminating Mother’s reunification services. The court of appeal declined Mother’s petition to set aside the order scheduling that hearing. View "N.M. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Calvin S. was declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and committed to the DJF for a maximum term of 15 years four months after he committed assault with a firearm and assault with intent to commit a sexual offense. The court concluded that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing Calvin to the DJF rather than letting him remain in juvenile hall. The court also concluded that the juvenile court should have stayed the term imposed for assault with intent to commit a sexual offense under Penal Code section 654. Accordingly, the court reversed the commitment order and remanded for a new disposition hearing. The juvenile court is directed to stay execution of any term of confinement imposed on the sustained allegation of assault with intent to commit a sexual offense. View "In re Calvin S." on Justia Law

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed two wardship petitions, alleging that appellant, age 17, committed misdemeanor disorderly conduct by soliciting or agreeing to engage in prostitution on two different dates. Appellant moved under to exclude all evidence that she engaged in commercial sexual acts, because she was a “victim of human trafficking,” who had been coerced into performing those acts by a pimp who was a human trafficker under Penal Code 236.1(c).. The district attorney argued that neither petition alleged she had engaged in any commercial sex act. The court heard the testimony of two undercover police officers and of an expert on human trafficking and found appellant to have committed the charged acts “as a result of being a victim of human trafficking,” but denied her motion to exclude evidence. The court concluded that Evidence Code 1161 did not apply to juvenile proceedings and, even if it did, would not apply to cases in which the victim of human trafficking did not actually engage in “sexual conduct on account of which anything of value is given or received by any person.” The court of appeal reversed, reasoning that section 1161 does apply in juvenile proceedings, and that acceptance of the prosecutor’s interpretation of that statute would virtually wipe out a significant protection afforded victims of human trafficking. View "In re N.C." on Justia Law

The victim and her boyfriend’s eight-year-old son exited a bus in San Leandro. The boy then informed the victim that he had seen “a male,” later identified as 16-year-old D.H., “standing behind her on the bus and exposing his penis and masturbat[ing]” and that “the male eventually ejaculated and the semen landed on the back of [the victim’s] clothing.” The victim had not noticed anything at the time but discovered “a white substance” on the back of her jacket. She eventually reported the incident. A juvenile court declared D.H. a ward of the court and placed him on probation after he admitted to a misdemeanor count of indecent exposure. Raising mostly constitutional claims of vagueness and overbreadth, he challenged four probation conditions that required him: not to access pornography; to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices and provide passwords; to attend school regularly; and not to leave home without a parent or the probation officer’s permission. The court of appeal held that the no-pornography and electronics search conditions were vague, and remanded. The court affirmed the attendance condition and, in light of ambiguity in the record, requested clarification of whether the court intended to impose the stay-home condition. View "In re D.H." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murdering his mother and conspiracy to murder his stepfather. Defendant was sixteen years old at the time he committed the crimes and was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). Defendant seeks resentencing in light of Miller v. Alabama. Miller held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. After the trial court reimposed the LWOP term, the Supreme Court issued Montgomery v. Louisiana, which held that Miller announced a substantive rule of law that had retroactive application in state collateral review proceedings. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court exercised its discretion in resentencing defendant without the guidance provided by Montgomery. View "People v. Padilla" on Justia Law

The minor, then three years old, became the subject of a dependency petition after his stepfather, Donald, assaulted his mother, in the minor’s presence. The minor’s paternity was the subject of separate family court proceedings filed by Michael and Joel, the minor’s biological father. Michael is the man with whom mother was living at the time of the minor’s birth. The family court ruled that both Michael and Joel qualify as presumed parents under Family Code section 7612(c), which authorizes multiple presumed parents. When the juvenile court inquired into the minor’s paternity, all three men sought to be declared presumed parents. Michael and Joel based their claims on the family court’s order, while Donald argued that he had served as the minor’s father for 20 months before his assault on mother. Considering itself bound by the family court’s order, the juvenile court found all three to be presumed parents. The court of appeal concluded that the juvenile court erred in finding Michael to be a presumed parent; section 316.2 grants exclusive jurisdiction over paternity issues to the juvenile court upon the filing of a dependency petition. The court upheld the designation of Donald as a presumed parent, as supported by substantial evidence. View "In re Alexander P." on Justia Law

W.C. was born in Guatemala in 1997. He lived with his grandparents because his mother was dead and his father missing. W.C. left Guatemala because of threats to his safety and came to the U.S. alone, in 2014. At the border, W.C. was taken into protective custody and placed with a distant relative in Oakland. The relative agreed to sponsor W.C. for asylum, but their relationship deteriorated. W.C. became homeless in October 2014. He started using drugs. Taken to a hospital for assessment after cutting himself at school, he was denied treatment because he lacked insurance. W.C. lived at a youth shelter for a while, then told social services he was living with a friend. Eventually, W.C. was suspended from school because he was under the influence of drugs, possessed a knife, and engaged in theft. W.C. requested protective custody. The court ordered him detained, with temporary placement and care provided by the agency. On May 1, 2015, W.C. turned 18. At a May 26 hearing, the agency recommended the dependency be dismissed because the juvenile court had made no legal determination on dependency. On July 7, the juvenile court dismissed the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition. In February 2016, W.C. filed a Request to Return to Juvenile Court Jurisdiction and Foster Care, hoping to participate in job training. The court denied the request. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that a nonminor who was never found a dependent of the court could not reenter and be subject to juvenile court jurisdiction. View "In re W.C." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Javante Scott appealed after the trial court, at a resentencing hearing, imposed the same 120-years-to-life term as at his original sentencing. Defendant was a minor at the time he committed his crimes, but was tried as an adult and convicted of three counts of attempted murder with firearm enhancements. Defendant argued the sentence was cruel and unusual because it imposed a de facto life sentence on him as a juvenile offender. The State argued that a new statute, Penal Code section 3051,1 which guaranteed defendant a future parole eligibility hearing, rendered the sentence constitutional. After review, the Court of Appeals held that section 3051 complied with the central constitutional requirement that the State provide a juvenile offender with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release within his or her expected lifetime. For this reason, the Court affirmed but with directions that the trial court determined whether defendant was afforded an adequate opportunity to make a record that complied with the requirements set forth in "California v. Franklin" (63 Cal.4th 261 (2016)). View "California v. Scott" on Justia Law

Minor admitted a violation of grand theft from the person of another, with a stipulated restitution of $20. Minor was ordered to the Correctional Academy for 12 months, consisting of six months of confinement and six months of aftercare under the supervision of probation. It was ordered that Minor could be returned to the Correctional Academy for a one-time remediation of 30 days at any time during the aftercare component due to a violation of probation or program rules. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that the 30-day remediation violated the statutory protections afforded in the Welfare and Institutions Code as it permitted the probation officer to determine a violation of probation without notice to Minor and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that it was impermissible for the juvenile court to impose a $50 “Facilities Assessment” pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a). The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "In re Gabriel T." on Justia Law