In re DustinH.

Filed 2/16/07  In re Dustin H. CA4/2

NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATEDISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

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

            Christian C. Buckley,under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, ChiefAssistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General,Rhonda Cartwright Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and HeatherF. Crawford, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellantDustin H. (minor) successfully completed a program at a placement facility andthen violated his probation after being released to the custody of his mother. The court ordered a short-term placement for him in another structuredfacility.  Minor contends that the juvenile court abused itsdiscretion in ordering the placement instead of continuing him in an aftercareprogram in the custody of a family friend.  We affirm.

PROCEDURALBACKGROUND

            Minor's criminal history dates back to October 31, 2000, when he was arrested for battery on a teacher.  (Pen. Code, § 243.6.)  Sincethen, he has been the subject of three Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 602 petitionsfor such offenses as receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))and car burglary (Pen.Code, § 459).  Minor has also been placed at several different structuredplacement facilities and has violated probation numerous times.

            On March 14, 2005, the district attorney filed a section 602 petition alleging five counts of carburglary.  (Pen. Code, § 459.)  Minor admitted one of the allegations and, onthe prosecution's motion, the court dismissed the remaining ones.  The courtordered minor detained in juvenile hall pending further hearing and then placedminor at the Shandin Hills facility on May 19, 2005.

            On September 19, 2005, minor completed his program at Shandin Hills.  The court released minor to thecustody of his mother, subject to certain terms of probation.

            On November 18, 2005,the district attorney filed a section 777 petition against minor, alleging thathe violated three probation terms, including that he not use or possess anycontrolled substances, that he attend school regularly, abiding by all schoolrules and exerting his best efforts, and that he not leave home withoutpermission.  The court issued a warrant for his arrest.

            On February 22, 2006, minor was arrested.  He admitted that he failed to attend school, in violation ofhis probation.  The court dismissed the two other allegations.

            The court held a contested disposition hearing at whichminor requested that he be placed with Katherine Smith, a family friend.  Theprobation officer opined that placement with Ms. Smith was not appropriate,since minor needed a much more structured setting.  Ms. Smith testified at thehearing and admitted that she had a bipolar disorder for which she had beentaking medication since 1992.  She was on disability for her bipolar disorder. She also testified that she was previously addicted to methamphetamine in theearly 1990's, at which time her children were taken away from her by the countyin which she lived.  She testified that she had three misdemeanor convictionsfor child endangerment, and that she did not drive and had to depend on otherpeople to take her places.

            After hearing Ms.Smith's testimony, the court concluded that minor needed to be in a structuredplacement for a short time before he moved into a new home.

ANALYSIS

TheJuvenile Court Properly Ordered a Short-Term Placement for Minor

            Minor argues that thecourt abused its discretion in ordering a short-term placement rather thanallowing him to be placed in the custody of Ms. Smith.  We find no abuse ofdiscretion.

            We review placementdecisions of the juvenile court for abuse of discretion, and we indulge allreasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court.  (In reAsean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.)

            The court here properlyexercised its discretion in ordering a short-term placement for minor.  After along history of delinquent behavior, placements, and probation violations,minor apparently had four successful months in the program at Shandin Hills.  Whileat Shandin Hills, he participated in weekly group therapy, drug and alcoholclasses, and he furthered his education.  As noted by the court, minor did wellat Shandin Hills because he was getting the kind of treatment he needed, butthen â€