In re Steven S.
Filed 9/6/13 In re Steven S. CA4/1
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
In re STEVEN S., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEVEN S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062895
(Super. Ct.
Nos. JJL24067/JJL25448)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Christopher W. Yeager, Judge. Affirmed.
Theresa O.
Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Laura A.
Glennon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Steven S.
appeals from a juvenile court disposition order placing him in an out-of-state
program. He contends the court abused
its discretion in placing him in the program without having sufficient evidence
there were no available, adequate in-state programs in which to place him. We conclude Steven has not established an
abuse of discretion on the record presented.
We, therefore, affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
In April
2008 the Imperial County district attorney's office filed a juvenile wardship
petition alleging Steven came within the juvenile court's jurisdiction for,
among other acts, obstructing, resisting
or delaying a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148,
subdivision (a)(1). In May 2008 Steven
admitted the offense and the court placed him on house arrest pending a
disposition hearing. The same month, the
Imperial County
probation department filed a juvenile
wardship petition alleging Steven failed to comply with the conditions of
his house arrest agreement. The court
placed Steven in the custody of his probation officer and detained him in
juvenile hall.
In June
2008 the court declared Steven a ward of the court, placed him on formal
probation until he turned 18, removed him from his mother's care, placed him in
his probation officer's custody, and ordered him housed at juvenile hall
pending transfer into an appropriate treatment program. Approximately two weeks later, he entered
PHILOS Adolescent Treatment Centers, Inc. (PHILOS) in Riverside.
In October
2008 the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging
Steven violated his probation by leaving PHILOS without authorization. The court later dismissed the petition and
Steven reentered PHILOS. In June 2009
Steven successfully completed the PHILOS program. The court returned him to his mother's care
and continued him on formal probation.
Approximately
three months later, the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition
alleging Steven violated his probation by being absent from school without an
excuse and smoking marijuana. Steven
subsequently admitted the violation and the court continued him on formal
probation in his mother's care under the same terms and conditions previously
imposed.
In December
2009 Steven was accepted at the Evening
Learning Center
program where he was to receive homework assistance, anger management,
behavioral health, and other services.
However, in January 2010, the probation department filed a juvenile
wardship petition alleging he violated his probation by refusing to attend the Evening
Learning Center
and using alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Steven admitted the violation and the court
again continued him on formal probation, removed him from his mother's care,
placed him in his probation officer's custody, and ordered him housed at
juvenile hall pending transfer into an appropriate treatment program. He was subsequently transferred to Project
Eureka in Riverside.
Four months
later, the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging
Steven violated his probation by being terminated from Project Eureka for
continued drug use. The petition was
withdrawn with the understanding Steven "would be returned to
placement." He subsequently entered
the Phoenix Academy
in Descanso.
Approximately
two weeks later, the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition
alleging Steven violated his probation by leaving the Phoenix
Academy without authorization. A little over a month later, Steven turned
himself in to law enforcement authorities.
The court subsequently dismissed the petition and reinstated Steven's
placement at the Phoenix Academy.
In
September 2010, within two weeks of Steven's reinstatement at the Phoenix
Academy, the probation department
filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging Steven violated his probation by
leaving the program without authorization.
Five months later, in February 2011, Imperial County Narcotics Task
force agents took Steven into custody after searching a residence and finding
Steven there in possession of marijuana and cocaine. The probation department filed another
juvenile wardship petition alleging Steven violated his probation by violating
Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The petition was withdrawn and Steven was
placed at Boys Republic
in Santa Ana.
A month
later, the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging
Steven violated his probation by leaving Boys
Republic without
authorization. Nine months later, in
February 2012, Steven was arrested on drug-related charges and the probation
department filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging he violated his
probation by committing the offenses.
The petition was dismissed and, in March 2012, the court placed Steven
in the custody of his half brother in Phoenix, Arizona.
In April
2012 the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging
Steven violated his probation by leaving his half brother's home and failing to
return. In May, Steven was taken into
custody at his parents' home. The
petition was withdrawn and the court returned Steven to his half brother's
custody.
In July
2012 the probation department filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging
Steven violated his probation by leaving his half brother's home and failing to
return. In August, a patrol sergeant
spotted Steven on the street in the city where his parents lived and took him
into custody.
A few days
after Steven's return to custody, the Imperial County District Attorney's
Office filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging Steven, among other acts,
resisted, delayed and obstructed a peace officer in violation of Penal Code
section 148, subdivision (a)(1).
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] Steven admitted the allegation, the court
removed him from his parent's custody, placed him in the probation officer's
custody, and ordered him housed at juvenile hall while awaiting placement in a
treatment program. In October 2012 the
court found there were no suitable in-state programs in which to place Steven
and ordered him placed at the Rite of Passage Silverstate Academy in Yerington,
Nevada (Nevada
program).
DISCUSSION
I
Before
placing Steven in the Nevada
program, the court conducted two hearings on the matter. At the first hearing, Steven's counsel
objected to any placement in an out-of-state program until all in-state
resources had been exhausted. The People
argued state law did not require exhaustion of all in-state placements. It required only that in-state placements be
inadequate. Steven's counsel conceded
the point, but nonetheless argued there was insufficient evidence in-state
placements were, in fact, inadequate.
The court agreed the probation department had not provided sufficient
evidence to show in-state programs were unavailable or inadequate to meet
Steven's needs. Consequently, the court
directed the probation officer to prepare a report addressing this issue
further.
Before the
second hearing, the court received a behavioral health assessment of
Steven. Steven was 16 and a half years
old at the time of the assessment. He
was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder not otherwise
specified, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder not otherwise
specified, amphetamine dependence, and cannabis dependence. He started using cannabis when he was nine. He started using methamphetamine when he was
11, the same year his father was incarcerated.
His parents were both drug users and he was exposed to domestic violence
between them. He was also sexually
abused by an uncle. Because he had
repeatedly absconded from his placements, he had attended school infrequently
and had earned only 15 credits toward his high school diploma. He also had never received the mental health
services necessary to deal with his individual and family issues. Without such services, his prospects were
poor. The assessment, therefore,
recommended Steven receive these services and, if he did not comply with them,
it further recommended he receive them at "a higher level of care in a
structured environment."
In addition
to the assessment, the court received two memos from the probation
department. The first memo listed the
prior programs in which Steven had been placed and three other in-state
programs to which the probation department had sent packets requesting
placement. As of the date of the first
memo, none of the in-state programs had responded to the probation department's
inquiries; however, Steven had been accepted into the Nevada program. The memo noted, "Steven's past and current
behavior proves that he would not benefit from being placed in a group home
that allows its residents to attend public schools. Steven is in need of a highly structured
program that will address his drug issues, education needs and where he will
learn a trade in order to have a skill so he can obtain a job once he completes
a placement program."
The second
memo specifically recommended placing Steven in the Nevada program because
there were no in-state programs that would adequately meet Steven's needs. According to the memo, the Nevada program
provided services and supervision equivalent to level 12-14 group homes. This is a higher level of services and
supervision than had been available to him at any of his prior placements
except Boys Republic, from which he had absconded. Additionally, the program had a school on its
grounds, limiting Steven's access to drugs and it was located in a rural area,
making it more difficult for him to run away.
Steven's
counsel, however, argued Steven had been accepted into a program in north San
Diego County (San Diego program) and asked for him to be placed there, as it
appeared to offer the same services as the Nevada program. Steven's probation officer confirmed Steven
had been accepted into the San Diego program, but explained that since Steven's
acceptance "we've had a few other boys moved from there and some of them
went AWOL because they are having some supervision issues. One of my kids that was there before, I won't
give you any names, but he was picking on the younger kids and doing things
like that and had got into the office and was using Facebook, things like
that. So I'm questioning [the] staff
supervision level right now." The
probation officer further stated the probation department no longer had any
children placed in the San Diego program.
She also pointed out the San Diego program did not have a school on its
grounds, so Steven would have to go to public school where he potentially would
have access to drugs.
In addition
to the San Diego program, the probation officer stated she contacted PHILOS and
another program. Both programs declined
to accept Steven. Moreover, PHILOS only
had one opening and the probation officer used it to place another child.
The
probation officer further stated she knew of only two program providers with schools
on their grounds: Rite of Passage and
another provider from whose program Steven had previously run away. Rite of Passage operates programs in
Sacramento and Nevada. The probation
officer contacted the Sacramento program, but the program would not accept
Steven. The probation officer also went
through a listing of in-state programs referenced by Steven's counsel at the
first hearing and determined the probation department was either already using
the programs or they served only dependent children or children from specific
counties. The probation officer knew of
no other programs accessible to the probation department that she believed
would accept Steven.
Based on
the probation officer's remarks, the court concluded there had been a sufficient
showing there were no available, adequate programs within California in which
to place Steven and ordered him placed in the Nevada program. Steven contends the court abused its
discretion by committing him to the Nevada program because the probation department
had not, in fact, presented sufficient evidence showing in-state programs were
unavailable or inadequate to meet his needs.
II
"Unless
otherwise authorized by law, the court may not order the placement of a minor
who is adjudged a ward of the court . . . in a private
residential facility or program that provides 24-hour supervision, outside of
the state, unless the court finds, in its order of placement,
that . . . [¶]
[i]n-state facilities or programs have been determined to be unavailable
or inadequate to meet the needs of the minor." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 727.1, subd.
(b)(1).) The evidence in this case shows
Steven needed high-level therapeutic, treatment, and educational services to
have any chance of turning his life around.
The evidence also shows Steven was hard to place because of his history
of absconding. The probation officer
reviewed possible placement options, including those contained in a listing of
all in-state programs. Of the programs
accessible to the probation department, the probation officer knew of only two
program providers with schools on their grounds. Steven had previously absconded from one of
the provider's programs. The other
provider operated programs in Sacramento and Nevada. The Sacramento program declined to accept
Steven, leaving the Nevada program as the remaining option.
Although
the evidence showed Steven had been accepted into the San Diego program, the
probation officer explained she did not believe the San Diego program was
acceptable because it did not have a school on its grounds to deter Steven from
accessing drugs and it was experiencing supervision problems. She gave examples of the supervision
problems, including children absconding and one of her own charges picking on
younger children and gaining unauthorized access to an office computer. She further indicated the probation
department had moved its children from the San Diego program and no longer had
any children placed there. While the
probation officer's examples were not detailed, they were nonetheless based on
firsthand information and demonstrated her concerns about the placement were
not arbitrary.
In our
view, the fact the San Diego program would not meet Steven's undisputed need
for an educational setting without access to drugs amply demonstrates its
inadequacy for him. However, even
without this impediment, we decline to fault the probation department or the
court for being unwilling to place a child with Steven's history of absconding
at a facility experiencing supervision problems of a magnitude prompting the
probation department to move its other children from there. Accordingly, we conclude Steven has not
demonstrated on the record presented that the court abused its discretion in
placing him in the Nevada program.
DISPOSITION
The
disposition order is affirmed.
McCONNELL,
P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
AARON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] The acts underlying the charges occurred in May 2012,
before Steven was returned to his half brother's custody.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] At the time Steven appealed the court's order, he had not
been transported to the Nevada program and the record does not show he was ever
actually placed there. As neither party
has informed us the appeal is or may be moot, we assume he was placed there and
has not absconded.
