In re Alex B.
Filed 4/26/06 In re Alex B. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re ALEX B., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEX B., Defendant and Appellant. |
F048557
(Super. Ct. No. JW095802)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. H.A. Staley, Judge.
John R. Hargreaves, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In February 2002, the juvenile court adjudged appellant Alex B., a minor, a ward of the court and placed him on probation, following appellant's admission that he committed a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 452, subdivision (d) (recklessly setting fire to the property of another). Subsequently, the court placed appellant in foster care. At a permanency planning hearing in July 2005, the court made various findings and orders but failed to make the findings described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 727.2, subdivision (e)(3).[1] Appellant contends, and the People concede, the failure to make these findings was error. We agree, and will remand the matter to the juvenile court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As indicated above, in February 2002, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court pursuant to section 602 and placed him on probation. In November 2003, appellant admitted an allegation that he violated his probation by possessing fireworks on a school campus. In December 2003, at the subsequent disposition hearing, the court continued appellant on probation, vested placement and care of appellant with the probation department and placed appellant in the care of appellant's aunt and uncle, Pamela and Kevin S., on a trial basis.
In July 2004, the probation officer filed a petition to modify appellant's probation by having appellant taken into protective custody. The probation officer, in a memorandum to the court, stated that Pamela and Kevin S., who were licensed foster guardians, were in â€
