Opinion
A156147
09-20-2019
In re T.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.F., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW186219)
T.F. appeals the juvenile court's determination, made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1, that her case should proceed in delinquency (§ 602) rather than in dependency (§ 300). She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion because it failed to consider the appropriate factors and substantial evidence does not support its findings. We affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
A.
"A child who has been abused or neglected falls within the juvenile court's protective jurisdiction under section 300 as a 'dependent' child of the court. In contrast, a juvenile court may take jurisdiction over a minor as a 'ward' of the court under section 602 when the child engages in criminal behavior. [Citations.] As a general rule, a child who qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court cannot be both." (In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505.)
"In cases where a child qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court, section 241.1 sets forth the procedure the juvenile court must follow to determine under which framework the case should proceed." (In re Ray M. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1048.) Whenever it appears that a minor may fit both descriptions, "the county probation department and the child welfare services department shall . . . initially determine which status will serve the best interests of the minor and the protection of society." (§ 241.1, subd. (a).)
"The joint assessment report must contain the joint recommendation of the probation and child welfare departments and also include (1) a description of the nature of the referral, (2) the age of the child, (3) the history of any physical, sexual or emotional abuse of the child, (4) the prior record of the child's parents for abuse of this or any other child, (5) the prior record of the child for out-of-control or delinquent behavior, (6) the parents' cooperation with the child's school, (7) the child's functioning at school, (8) the nature of the child's home environment, (9) the history of involvement of any agencies or professionals with the child and his or her family, (10) any services or community agencies that are available to assist the child and his or her family, (11) a statement by any counsel currently representing the child, and (12) a statement by any court-appointed special advocate (CASA) volunteer currently appointed for the child." (In re Joey G. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 343, 347.) After the recommendations of both departments are presented to the juvenile court, "the court shall determine which status is appropriate for the minor." (§ 241.1, subd. (a).)
B.
On August 27, 2018, 16-year-old T.F. and an adult accomplice took approximately $998 worth of beauty products from a San Francisco Walgreens. When T.F. tried to leave the store without paying, an 82-year-old employee grabbed T.F. by her hair. T.F.'s accomplice swung a backpack at the employee, hitting him several times in the face. T.F. then repeatedly kicked the employee and pulled him to the ground before fleeing. When a witness attempted to take a photo of the getaway car, one of the two yelled, "If you come closer, see what happens" and "[g]ood luck, we don't have plates." The employee suffered a bump, scratches, bruising, and an open wound to his face.
The San Francisco County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition, under section 602, alleging T.F. committed one misdemeanor, commercial shoplifting (Pen. Code, § 459.5, subd. (a); count three), and two felonies: inflicting injury on an elder adult likely to cause great bodily injury (id., § 368, subd. (b)(1); count one) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4); count two). After the prosecutor amended the petition to reduce count one to a misdemeanor, T.F. admitted the allegations in counts one and three in exchange for dismissal of count two.
The San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department (Probation) reported to the juvenile court, in advance of disposition, that T.F.'s mother may have unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues. Within the previous three years, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) had received four referrals of neglect and abuse involving T.F. Although it is uncertain if any of these referrals were investigated, it is clear T.F. was homeless and without adult supervision or support at the time of her offenses. T.F. said she had been kicked out of her parents' homes, left the care of her half-sisters' mother, and provided for herself by stealing. T.F. also admitted using marijuana regularly "to get through the day."
Both Probation and the Agency recommended T.F. receive services as a dependent (§ 300). On October 1, 2018, the juvenile court followed the recommendation, placed T.F. on nonwardship probation (§ 725, subd. (a)), and ordered a suitable Agency placement.
Although it is not in the record before us, the Agency apparently filed a dependency petition on T.F.'s behalf on August 31, 2018. T.F. was declared a dependent of the juvenile court sometime between then and September 17, 2018. --------
The Agency initially placed T.F. at a foster home in Bakersfield. About two weeks later, T.F. received a warning regarding improper behavior and the Agency moved her into a trial placement with her father. After another week, T.F. left her father's home, saying she no longer wanted to live with him. The Agency moved her to a foster home in Fresno. About a week later, T.F. left that home, without permission, and a warrant issued for her arrest.
C.
On November 18, 2018, T.F. was arrested for stealing hygiene products, valued at over $600, from a South San Francisco Walgreens. When T.F. and her two adult accomplices were apprehended by police, she gave the officers a false name and stated she "needed stuff" after leaving her placement.
The San Mateo County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition, alleging T.F. committed one felony, conspiracy to commit a crime (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); count one), and three misdemeanors: resisting or obstructing a peace officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1); count two), commercial shoplifting (id., § 459.5, subd. (a); count three), and giving false information to a police officer (id., § 148.9, subd. (a); count four). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the district attorney reduced count one to a misdemeanor, T.F. admitted counts one and four, and the San Mateo County juvenile court dismissed counts two and three. The matter was transferred to San Francisco County for disposition (§ 750).
D.
The San Francisco juvenile court accepted the transfer, revoked T.F.'s probation, and ordered her detained pending further orders. T.F.'s probation officer filed both a section 241.1 report and a dispositional report and recommendation. The reports noted T.F.'s mother had mental health issues and was homeless, T.F. had herself been chronically homeless, and no family member was willing to take her in. T.F. had previously been referred to Probation, in 2017, for shoplifting and providing false identification. That referral was resolved informally. T.F. was categorized as presenting a "moderate risk" of reoffending.
T.F.'s probation officer reported she and other representatives from Probation, the Agency, and the city attorney's office participated in a "Juvenile Court Committee for Assessment and Status Evaluation" meeting to make the assessment required under section 241.1. At the meeting, Probation recommended T.F. remain a dependent under section 300, and the Agency recommended she be declared a ward under section 602.
Due to the split recommendation, T.F.'s case was presented to a multi-disciplinary team, who recommended that T.F. remain a section 300 dependent. The recommendation was based on T.F.'s continued requests for help from the Agency; that the two wardship petitions involved property offenses related to T.F.'s homelessness; and the belief that the Agency could provide supervision that went beyond the one-year probation would provide. T.F.'s probation officer also recommended reinstatement of non-wardship probation.
At a contested dispositional hearing, T.F.'s delinquency attorney argued she should remain a dependent. The People objected to the recommendation, arguing T.F.'s repeated departure from placements and her new offenses warranted "the increased supervision of wardship probation."
T.F.'s probation officer testified she had only supervised T.F. for about two months, during which T.F. received limited services as a result of her changing placements. The probation officer believed T.F. needed more permanent support - in the form of an Agency social worker until age 21 - because T.F. lacked family members who could provide for her. When questioned by the court, the probation officer conceded dependency services would only be beneficial if T.F. participates and avoids criminal conduct. The probation officer also admitted a new dependency petition could be filed if T.F. successfully completed probation and continued to have nowhere to live. At the current juncture, however, the Agency believed it was unlikely to find a suitable placement for T.F.
The juvenile court found T.F.'s circumstances made her better suited to being adjudged a ward, terminated her dependency status, declared her a ward of the court, and placed her in the custody of Probation for out-of-home placement. The court explained, "[T]his is not that difficult of a decision for me to make . . . because I feel like this situation that [T.F.] is in right now screams out for more support and the type of support that [she] might actually respect enough to listen to." The court also indicated the matter could be revisited.
DISCUSSION
A.
We review the court's section 241.1 determination for abuse of discretion. (In re M.V., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1506.) " 'To show abuse of discretion, the appellant must demonstrate the juvenile court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' [Citation.] Throughout our analysis, we will not lightly substitute our decision for that rendered by the juvenile court. Rather, we must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings where there is substantial evidence to support them." (Ibid.) " 'A discretionary order that is based on the application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion, and is subject to reversal even though there may be substantial evidence to support that order.' " (In re Ray M., supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 1051.)
B.
T.F. insists the record supports only one outcome (dependency) by focusing on the factors most favorable to her position - her homelessness, lack of family support, and receipt of Agency services for less than two months. Because the juvenile court reached a contrary result, T.F. submits it must not have considered these factors. We are unpersuaded.
T.F. does not contend the circumstances she identifies on appeal were inadequately addressed in the probation officer's reports, which the juvenile court stated it had read. In the absence of authority requiring the juvenile court to explicitly address each section 241.1 factor on the record, we presume it fulfilled its duty to consider the factors addressed in the reports. (See D.M. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1125; Evid. Code, § 664.) T.F. is essentially asking us to reweigh the evidence.
Section 241.1 "requires assessment of both the needs of the minor and the need of society for protection." (In re Marcus G. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1015.) The record before us suggests the juvenile court recognized T.F.'s housing instability influenced her criminal conduct. However, the juvenile court clearly did not believe T.F.'s self-serving statements that she presented little threat to society because she wants help and because she shoplifted solely to obtain necessities. T.F.'s statement she was amenable to Agency help was belied by substantial evidence. Importantly, T.F. had been unable to access Agency services because she repeatedly changed dependency placements. T.F. was removed from her first placement for poor behavior, then left her second placement because she was not comfortable, and then finally ran away from an Agency placement of her own volition. Then she stole over $600 worth of personal products, for the second time in three months, with the assistance of adult accomplices. The juvenile court's implicit finding that T.F. presented more than a minimal risk to the public is further supported by evidence of the sophisticated and sometimes violent nature of her offenses.
T.F. also contends the juvenile court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because it failed to account for the multidisciplinary team's concern that T.F. would likely have no home to return to after completing probation. Again, T.F. overlooks testimony conceding a new dependency petition could be filed if the circumstances evolved. Furthermore, T.F. ignores the Agency's report that it was currently unable to find a suitable placement given her history of absconding and reoffending.
Considering all these circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining T.F. needed accountability and services that she was unlikely to receive unless she was declared a ward. (See In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30, 46 ["Whereas the dependency system is geared toward protection of a child victimized by parental abuse or neglect, the delinquency system enforces accountability for the child's own wrongdoing, both to rehabilitate the child and to protect the public"]; In re M.V., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1514 [no abuse of discretion found in conclusion that "minor's interests—including her manifest need for a safe and secure placement—would best be served through the delinquency system"]; In re Joey G., supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 347 ["When a minor is adjudged a ward of the court, the minor is subject to more-restrictive placements because of his or her criminal conduct"].)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's section 241.1 order is affirmed.
/s/_________
BURNS, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
JONES, P. J. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J.