Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In 2018 and 2019, a minor, J.S., committed a series of serious crimes, including seven street robberies, two burglaries, an attempted robbery resulting in murder, and the drugging and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. J.S. was 16 and 17 years old at the time of these offenses. The People filed an 18-count petition against J.S., including charges of murder, robbery, burglary, and sexual assault, and sought to transfer him to adult criminal court.The juvenile court in Ventura County conducted a transfer hearing and found that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system's jurisdiction, which would expire when he turned 25. The court considered J.S.'s criminal sophistication, previous delinquent history, and the gravity of the offenses. Despite evidence of J.S.'s participation in rehabilitation programs and expert testimony suggesting potential for rehabilitation, the court concluded that the severity and premeditated nature of his crimes, along with his behavior in custody, indicated a need for prolonged treatment and supervision beyond the juvenile system's capacity.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the juvenile court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the transfer order, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings. The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its discretion for that of the trial court. The court found that the juvenile court had appropriately considered the statutory criteria and expert testimony, and its conclusion that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system was supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "People v. J.S." on Justia Law

Elizabeth T. was taking her three children to see their father when she fell on a bus after consuming alcohol. An anonymous caller reported her to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), alleging she was intoxicated and her children were neglected. Elizabeth denied being heavily intoxicated and claimed her children were well cared for. DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging Elizabeth's substance abuse posed a risk to her children.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the petition, citing a prior sustained allegation of substance abuse from 2018. The court ordered informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b). Elizabeth appealed, arguing that one incident of alcohol abuse did not support the finding that she posed a risk to her children at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence of the bus incident, along with the four-year-old allegation, did not support the finding that Elizabeth's conduct created a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness to her children. The court noted that Elizabeth had cooperated with DCFS, submitted to drug and alcohol testing, and her children were healthy and well cared for. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence of a current risk to the children and reversed the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings and disposition orders. View "In re Gilberto G." on Justia Law

A minor, V., was removed from her mother’s care at birth due to the mother’s drug abuse. V. and her half-brother, N., were initially placed together with a relative, but N. was later moved to his non-offending father’s custody. V. was placed with her aunt, who became her legal guardian in 2019. The aunt sought to adopt V. in 2022, but the mother opposed the termination of her parental rights, citing the parental relationship exception to adoption.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the mother did not meet the burden to demonstrate the parental relationship exception. However, the court, without input from the parties, applied the sibling relationship exception, concluding that adoption would not be in V.’s best interest due to her bond with N. The court selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan for V. Both the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and V. appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the juvenile court erred by sua sponte applying the sibling relationship exception without any party asserting it and by relieving the mother of her burden to prove an exception to adoption. The appellate court found that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that the sibling relationship exception applied, as V. and N. had limited shared experiences and their relationship would likely continue even if V. were adopted. The appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s orders and directed it to enter a new order selecting adoption as the permanent plan for V. View "In re V.S." on Justia Law

A minor child, Rene V., was removed from the custody of his legal guardian, Dora V., by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to allegations of abuse and neglect. Dora was appointed as Rene's legal guardian by the juvenile court. After Rene's removal, the juvenile court ordered family reunification services for Dora, including visitation. However, Rene refused to participate in overnight visits and eventually refused all visitation with Dora.The juvenile court sustained the DCFS's petition and ordered family reunification services for Dora. At an 18-month review hearing, the court terminated Dora's reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing. Dora filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the juvenile court erred by allowing Rene to refuse visits and that no substantial evidence supported the finding that she received reasonable reunification services. The court issued an order to show cause but denied Dora's request to stay the section 366.26 hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that legal guardians appointed by the juvenile court are not entitled to a presumption of reunification services, unlike those appointed under the Probate Code. The court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional reunification services to Dora. The court emphasized that the statutory scheme for dependency guardianships does not mandate reunification services and that the juvenile court's decision was in Rene's best interests. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Dora V. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2017, a minor admitted to two counts of assault with intent to commit rape and was initially placed in a Level B program. Due to multiple probation violations, the juvenile court later committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in 2019. After being discharged from DJJ in April 2023, the juvenile court imposed a probation condition requiring the minor to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.008. The minor appealed, arguing that this requirement violated his equal protection rights because it treated him differently from minors who committed similar offenses after the juvenile justice realignment, which closed DJJ and transferred responsibilities to county facilities.The Superior Court of Sacramento County upheld the probation condition, rejecting the minor's equal protection argument. The court found that the sex offender registration requirement did not involve a loss of liberty and thus did not implicate a fundamental right, applying the rational basis standard of review. The court reasoned that the Legislature could have determined that minors in county facilities have a lower risk of recidivism due to more effective treatment, justifying the differential treatment.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the rational basis standard applied because the sex offender registration requirement did not involve a fundamental right or suspect classification. The court found that a rational basis existed for the differential treatment, as the Legislature could have reasonably concluded that minors already in DJJ custody posed a higher risk of recidivism and required continued registration to protect public safety. Thus, the court found no equal protection violation and affirmed the dispositional order. View "People v. I.B." on Justia Law

In a juvenile wardship proceeding, the minor's counsel declared a doubt about the minor's competency to stand trial. Consequently, the juvenile court suspended the proceedings and referred the minor for a competency evaluation. The court's protocol mandated the disclosure of the minor's mental health records to the court-appointed expert for evaluation. The minor objected, citing the psychotherapist-patient privilege under California Evidence Code section 1014. The court overruled the objection and ordered the disclosure, prompting the minor to file a writ petition challenging this decision.The Contra Costa County Superior Court overruled the minor's objection, stating that Welfare and Institutions Code section 709 permits the compelled disclosure of all available records, including mental health records, for competency evaluations. The court also referenced Evidence Code section 1025, which it interpreted as allowing such disclosures in competency proceedings. The minor's request for a stay to seek appellate review was denied, leading to the filing of the writ petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Evidence Code section 1016 renders the psychotherapist-patient privilege inapplicable in juvenile competency proceedings once the minor's counsel declares a doubt about the minor's competency. The court reasoned that the issue of the minor's mental or emotional condition is tendered by the minor through their counsel, thus falling under the patient-litigant exception to the privilege. The court denied the minor's writ petition and dissolved the partial stay of the juvenile court's order. View "T.M. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves the removal of a newborn child, N., from her mother, C.J., due to the mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed N. with a foster caregiver, who was a trial attorney for the County Counsel’s office. Maternal aunt (aunt) requested placement of N. shortly after her birth, but DCFS failed to assess her for over a year despite repeated requests from mother’s counsel, N.’s counsel, and aunt herself. During this period, visitation between N. and her family was severely limited, with the caregiver dictating the visitation schedule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County repeatedly ordered DCFS to assess aunt for placement, but DCFS did not comply. Eventually, aunt’s home was approved for placement, but DCFS still did not move N. to aunt’s care, deferring to the caregiver’s objections. By the time the court considered aunt for placement, over a year had passed, and the court found it was too late to apply the relative placement preference. The court also found that it was not in N.’s best interest to move her due to her bond with the caregiver.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that DCFS’s delays in evaluating aunt for placement and the court’s lackluster response to the family’s pleas for supportive services were prejudicial. The court concluded that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3 and that the error was prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the order terminating mother’s reunification services, the order denying mother’s section 361.3 motion, and the order terminating her parental rights, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also directed DCFS and the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. View "In re N.J." on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, J.R., who appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and orders concerning her son, Dominic. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) had previously received multiple referrals alleging general neglect, sexual abuse, and at-risk sibling abuse within the family. The allegations primarily centered around the mother’s fiancé, Brandon, who was accused of sexually abusing the mother’s daughter, S.R., over several years. Despite these allegations, the mother denied any knowledge of the abuse and refused to cooperate with the Department’s investigations.The Superior Court of Riverside County found that the mother failed to protect her children from Brandon’s abuse and sustained allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The court removed Dominic from the mother’s custody, granted sole physical and legal custody to Dominic’s father, Richard, and ordered monitored visitation for the mother.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings under section 300(b)(1) and section 300(j) as to Dominic. The court noted that there was no evidence that Dominic was at substantial risk of physical harm or sexual abuse. The court emphasized that the allegations against the mother were specific to her failure to protect S.R. from sexual abuse, and there was no evidence that Dominic faced a similar risk.The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to S.R. as abandoned, reversed the dispositional findings and orders as to Dominic, and vacated the true findings on the jurisdictional allegations with directions to dismiss the petition as to Dominic. View "In re S.R." on Justia Law

Brandon H. was the subject of three juvenile wardship petitions. He sought to have the first and third petitions dismissed and sealed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. The juvenile court denied his request, reasoning that the sustained allegations in the second petition precluded the dismissal and sealing of any of the petitions. The court failed to consider each petition individually.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially adjudged Brandon a ward of the court and placed him on probation following the first petition, which alleged felony grand theft. While on probation, a second petition was filed, alleging second-degree robbery and other offenses, which was sustained, and Brandon was committed to a treatment program. A third petition, filed in San Francisco County, alleged felony grand theft and misdemeanor battery. Brandon admitted to these charges, and the case was transferred back to Contra Costa County, where his wardship continued. Upon completing probation, Brandon requested the dismissal and sealing of the first and third petitions, which the court denied, treating the petitions as a single entity.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the juvenile court erred by not considering each petition individually for dismissal and sealing under section 786. The appellate court found that the third petition must be dismissed and sealed as Brandon met the criteria for satisfactory completion of probation for that petition. However, the first petition could not be dismissed and sealed because Brandon did not meet the criteria due to new findings of wardship for felony offenses during the probation period for the first petition. The appellate court remanded the case to dismiss and seal the third petition but affirmed the decision regarding the first petition. View "In re Brandon H." on Justia Law

Mother, Lidia P., appealed the juvenile court's denial of her request for a restraining order against Father, Luis M., despite findings of domestic violence. The court found that Father had committed multiple acts of domestic violence against Mother and one of her children but declined to issue a restraining order, reasoning it was unnecessary since the parents no longer lived together. Instead, the court orally ordered both parents to stay away from each other.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging that the children, A.P. and D.P., were at substantial risk of harm due to domestic violence between the parents, Mother's mental and emotional problems, Father's severe epilepsy, improper use of child safety restraints, marijuana use, and physical abuse of A.P. The juvenile court sustained some of these allegations, including those related to domestic violence and physical abuse, and removed the children from both parents. Mother then sought a restraining order, which the court initially granted temporarily but later denied permanently, opting instead for a mutual stay-away order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying the restraining order based on the parents' physical separation and the issuance of a non-CLETS stay-away order. The appellate court held that physical separation and non-CLETS orders are not adequate substitutes for the protections provided by a restraining order, which is enforceable by law enforcement. The appellate court reversed the juvenile court's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing on Mother's restraining order request, emphasizing that the juvenile court must use the correct legal standard in its determination. View "In re A.P." on Justia Law