In re J.H.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 11/19/13  In re J.H. CA1/1

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

> 

 

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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

 

IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION
ONE

 

 
>

In re J.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,             Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.H.,             Defendant and Appellant.	A138802   (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1100483)

 

>Memorandum
Opinionhref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">>[1]

            Defendant
J.H. appeals from an out-of-home placement probation order, following her
admission of a third violation of her probation.  Her appointed counsel on appeal has filed a
brief pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in
which counsel raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent
review of the record.  (See also >People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (>Kelly).)  Counsel has averred defendant has been
informed of her right to file a supplemental
brief.  We have received no such
brief.

            We
summarize only the facts and procedural background relevant to review of the challenged
probation order.  On May 24, 2011, defendant admitted count 3 of an
amended section 602 wardship petition, alleging misdemeanor disturbing the
peace (Pen. Code, § 415, subd. (2)).  Wardhsip
was declared on June 21, and J.H. was placed on probation subject to numerous
terms and conditions, including that she serve one weekend in juvenile hall and
thereafter reside with her grandmother.

            One
year later, on May 30, 2012,
J.H. admitted a probation violation, namely failing to attend and being
suspended from school.  Wardship was
continued, and she was ordered to complete 30 days of home supervision and
attend substance abuse counseling.

            Six
months thereafter, on December 28, 2012, she admitted a second probation
violation, including failing to attend school regularly, smoking marijuana,
being dropped from the substance abuse
program, and running away from her grandmother’s.  The probation department recommended out-of-home
placement for numerous reasons, including providing J.H. with a structured and
rehabilitative environment where her serious mental health issues could be
addressed.  Wardship was continued, and
she was ordered to complete 60 days of home supervision. 

            Within
three months, on March 1, 2013,
J.H. admitted a third probation violation—testing positive for THC, cutting off
her ankle monitor and running away.  The
probation department report chronicled J.H.’s extensive history with the
juvenile and dependency system, the serious functionality issues of her
immediate family (grandmother, mother and two sisters), her lack of attendance
at school and her serious mental health needs. 
The department again urged that J.H. be placed out of the home.  Stating J.H. had reached the point where she
was “out of control” and was in serious need of treatment, the court agreed
with the department’s recommendations.  Wardship
was continued, and this time out-of-home placement was ordered.  On May 1, the department reported J.H. had
been accepted into the Crossroads program located in Sonoma
County, and she was placed there on
May 6. 

            Having
reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende and Kelly, we agree
no arguable issue exists on appeal.  J.H.
was ably represented
by counsel during the third probation violation proceedings.  The court acted well within its discretion in
ordering out-of-home placement following J.H.’s admission of a third probation
violation.  It is apparent from the
record the court reviewed the relevant materials before it.  It allowed J.H.’s grandmother to speak on the
issue of placement.  And it explained its
reasons for ordering out-of-home placement, and made all necessary findings. 

            We therefore affirm the juvenile
court’s out-of-home placement order.

 

 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                    Banke,
J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P. J.

 

 

_________________________

Becton, J.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">*