legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Michael S.

In re Michael S.
06:29:2006

In re Michael S.




Filed 6/28/06 In re Michael S. CA4/2





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO















In re MICHAEL S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.




THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MICHAEL S.,


Defendant and Appellant.



E038971


(Super.Ct.No. J197830)


OPINION



APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Margaret A. Powers, Judge. Affirmed.


Rosemary Bishop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Supervising


Deputy Attorney General, and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Defendant and appellant Michael S. (minor) was declared a ward of the court after admitting the allegation in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] petition that he committed grand theft of personal property. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) He was placed on probation. Subsequently, another section 602 petition was filed against him, alleging that he committed a residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) He again admitted the offense. At a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered minor placed in the custody of the probation department and detained in juvenile hall, pending selection of a suitable foster care facility. On appeal, minor contends that the court abused its discretion in removing him from his parents' home, and that the court failed to make specific findings under section 726. We affirm.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


Original Petition


Minor took a laptop computer from a high school classroom without permission. A witness reported the theft to school officials. When the police questioned him, minor admitted the offense. He said he intended to return the computer the day after he took it. He actually did not return it until he was confronted by the teacher a few days later.


On October 21, 2004, the San Bernardino County District Attorney (the district


attorney) filed a section 602 petition, charging minor with grand theft of personal property. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) Minor admitted the truth of the allegation. On March 16, 2005, the court declared minor a ward and placed him in his parents' custody on the Success probation program. On July 15, 2005, the court terminated the Success probation and placed minor on regular probation.


Subsequent Petition


On August 8, 2005, minor took a laptop computer from a residence without permission. Minor had done some yard work for the owner of the computer (the victim). When the police contacted minor, he admitted to taking the computer and hiding it in a ditch. He said he was mad at the victim for telling him he did a poor job of cleaning the yard.


On August 10, 2005, the district attorney filed a subsequent section 602 petition, charging minor with first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) Minor admitted the truth of the allegation. On September 13, 2005, after a contested dispositional hearing, the court placed minor in the custody of the probation department and detained him in juvenile hall, pending selection of a foster care facility.


ANALYSIS


The Juvenile Court Properly Removed Minor from His Parents' Custody


Minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by removing him from parental custody and placing him in a foster care facility. Specifically, he argues that the court failed to make the specific findings required by section 726, that his needs could be


met at home, and that the court failed to order the probation department to make reasonable efforts to provide services necessary for him to return home. We disagree.


A. Standard of Review


We review a placement decision for abuse of discretion and will indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court. (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329-1330.) We will not disturb the juvenile court's findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. (Id. at p. 1330.)


B. There Was No Abuse of Discretion


Section 726, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part: â€





Description A decision regarding declaring a child a ward of the court on admission of committed grand theft of personal property.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale