Opinion
E072986
05-12-2020
In re L.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.P., Defendant and Appellant.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1600814) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Petersen, Judge. Affirmed. Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
L.P., the minor in this delinquency case, challenges the juvenile court's dispositional order placing her in a youth treatment facility, as opposed to allowing her to remain at home under probation conditions and GPS monitoring. She also challenges the court's denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 778 petition to modify her placement, which she filed about two months into her stay at the facility. Specifically, she argues the court abused its discretion by initially placing her in the facility because it neither satisfied her best interests nor provided the least restrictive environment to keep her safe. She argues the court also abused its discretion by denying her petition and refusing to let her return home based on a change in circumstances at the facility. According to L.P., events occurring after her placement revealed that the facility is not a safe or rehabilitative enough setting.
While we acknowledge L.P.'s desire to return home and take seriously her vow to try her best to stop violating her probation conditions, the single most important factor in this case is her tendency to run away from home and place herself in extremely dangerous situations. We therefore conclude that, on both occasions, the trial court reasonably determined her safety was more important than her desire to return home and engage in treatment and counseling within the community. We affirm.
I
FACTS
A. The Delinquency Petitions
In September 2016, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging L.P. (who was then 14 years old) committed robbery and grand theft and resisted arrest. (Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Welf. & Inst. Code.) The petition was based on L.P.'s grandmother's report that L.P. had taken her phone and refused to give it back. The grandmother called the police who retrieved the phone from L.P. when they arrived and, after some argument from L.P., arrested her. L.P.'s mother told the police her daughter was difficult to control. She said L.P. ran away from home often, kept marijuana paraphernalia in the house, and became aggressive and unpredictable when disciplined. L.P.'s mother asked that her daughter be placed in custody "due to her poor choices, violent behavior, and substance abuse." She said she loves L.P. but, due to her defiance, she believed her daughter needed more structure and security than she could provide at her home.
L.P. admitted committing grand theft and the prosecution dismissed the remaining allegations. The probation department prepared a report for the court based on its interviews with L.P. and her family. L.P. was a high school freshman at the time and was doing poorly at school, both behaviorally and academically. She reported that she smoked marijuana regularly and had used LSD on several occasions. She also reported that between the ages of four and ten, she had been sexually molested by family members and friends of her father. She had tried to kill herself on multiple occasions, most recently in January 2016, when she tried to overdose on her brother's ADHD medication. L.P.'s mother confirmed the sexual abuse. She said L.P. had been molested by her older brother, her cousins, and her father's friend. She said Child Protective Services had gotten involved, L.P. was kept away from her abusers, and her son had been placed in a group home for treatment.
During a court-ordered psychological evaluation, L.P. told her examiner, Dr. Suiter, that she had at least three psychiatric hospitalizations and has been prescribed antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication. Dr. Suiter diagnosed L.P. with bipolar disorder and mild to moderate conduct disorder. He recommended consistent psychotherapy and a continued regime of psychotropic medication. He believed L.P. was a bright and kind child who would benefit from psychotherapy and a "stabilized environment." Throughout this case L.P. has been taking various psychotropic medications as well as medication for depression, anxiety, PTSD, and insomnia.
In October 2016, the juvenile court removed L.P. from the custody of her mother and placed her at the California Family Life Center. According to the probation review report regarding her stay there, L.P. had several serious incident reports and exhibited aggressive and sexualized behaviors.
In March 2017, the prosecution filed another section 602 petition, alleging L.P. committed battery and assault with a deadly weapon. This petition was based on an incident where L.P. attacked another girl for telling school staff that she had smoked crack cocaine. L.P. allegedly threw a cup of water in the girl's face, punched her head several times, and choked her. L.P. admitted the battery allegation and the prosecution dismissed the assault allegation. This time, the juvenile court placed her at the Youth for Tomorrow facility in Virginia.
B. Probation and Home Supervision Agreement Violations
In June 2018, after more than a year at Youth for Tomorrow, during which her behavior stabilized and improved, the juvenile court placed L.P. back in her mother's home with various probation conditions, including that she not leave home without permission. In the spring of 2019, the probation department informed the court that L.P. had violated her probation conditions. In early March, she had run away from home and was gone for two days. She also got in a fight with another student that ultimately resulted in a suspension. At the hearing on the violations, the juvenile court told L.P. it was giving her one more chance to prove she could remain at home and abide by the conditions of her probation. The court advised L.P., "I'm going to be honest with you. I am very concerned [that you're still leaving home without permission]. And one of the only ways I can protect you from yourself is to take you into custody. Okay? To keep you safe. [¶] But after having a long discussion with your attorney, the District Attorney, and the probation department, I can tell you that not everyone was in agreement on what I should do. But I'm going to give you one more opportunity to show us that you can follow the rules that you say you're going to follow. However, it's going to involve a home supervision contract, and it's going to involve GPS monitoring. [¶] . . .You're putting yourself in very dangerous situations."
On May 1, 2019, L.P. was taken into custody for violating her home supervision agreement after she was again suspended from school, pending expulsion. The juvenile court held a detention hearing two days later, terminated home supervision, and placed L.P. in the custody of the probation department.
On May 16, 2019, the probation department filed a report and recommendation. The report detailed L.P.'s extensive behavioral issues at school, including 71 truancies, 10 days of suspension, physical altercations with her peers, and intimidating staff and students. L.P.'s mother told probation her daughter had run away at least five times in the previous six months. Her mother also reported she was concerned for L.P.'s safety because she had recently searched her phone and discovered L.P. had been messaging with an adult male on Instagram about meeting up to perform sexual acts in exchange for money.
L.P. admitted to probation that she uses marijuana and methamphetamine. She said the last time she ran away from home, on April 7, she was drugged and raped. She said she had left home without permission to meet up with friends and get a free tattoo. She and her friends went to a "trap house" where the tattoo artist and several other people were using heroin. She said a 14-year-old male forced her to orally copulate him, then forced her onto a couch where she was injected with what she believes was methamphetamine, and raped by another male. She later woke up naked in a hotel room with no recollection of how she got there. There was another male in the room with her and he blew methamphetamine smoke into her mouth and raped her. When she next regained consciousness, she was in a car with a male who hit her and then told her they had been "hooking up." The man dropped her off in a restaurant parking lot where she found a woman who helped her and took her home.
L.P. said she feels her friends "negatively encouraged her behavior." She admitted she had been messaging with a man on Instagram about selling sex acts. She said she had lost respect for herself and was only thinking about "making money." Although L.P.'s mother admitted to probation that her daughter hangs out with negative influences, she said she wanted L.P. to remain at home and not to be placed in a treatment facility.
The probation department recommended L.P. be placed at the Youth Treatment and Education Center (YTEC) to hold her "accountable for her actions, address her substance abuse issues, reinforce law abiding behavior, ensure proper supervision, and assist her with making better choices." Probation reported L.P. had been exhibiting excellent behavior while being held in custody in juvenile hall. She had no negative incidents and had a score of 100% on the "weekly honor roll."
The probation report summarized the results of the Riverside County Interagency Placement Screening Committee's assessment of L.P. on May 9, 2019. They identified L.P.'s treatment needs as "individual counseling, family counseling, behavioral health services, drug treatment, impulse control, peer issues and sex trafficking counseling." The committee considered several placement alternatives, including returning L.P. to her home, and, like the probation department, ultimately recommended YTEC. "It is felt YTEC will maintain the safety of the youth and is the best option to continue [L.P.'s] participation in the Resilient Brave Youth (RBY) program. It should be noted, the minor's participation in RBY was sporadic when she was out of custody. Since the minor has been in-custody her participation in the RBY program has positively improved." RBY is a program specifically designed to provide therapeutic services to sexually-exploited youth.
On May 21, 2019, L.P. admitted violating probation by leaving home without permission and being involved in a physical altercation at school. The juvenile court set the matter for a disposition hearing. L.P. filed a disposition memorandum proposing an "alternate, less restrictive plan" than placement at YTEC. She proposed remaining at home with an ankle monitoring device and participating in outpatient treatment services and school with her grandmother providing transportation.
C. The Challenged Dispositional Order
The disposition hearing took place on June 5 and 6, 2019. The court heard testimony from various witnesses, including L.P., who promised to turn her behavior around and said she wants to go to college to become a social worker and help youth like herself. She told the court she had been selfish and had been placing her own desires over her family's. She admitted that since she had been in juvenile hall she felt safe from the kind of dangers she experienced when she last ran away and was raped and drugged. She also said if she were placed in a facility she would put just as much effort toward rehabilitation as she would if she were allowed to remain at home. A counselor from RBY said L.P. would be able to continue her participation in the program if she were placed in a treatment facility. L.P.'s mother said L.P.'s grandmother would drive her to all of her counseling appointments if she were allowed to remain home.
Before issuing its ruling, the juvenile court assured the parties it had "consider[ed] everything," including the probation department's report, L.P.'s school records, her medical and mental health history, as well as her history with controlled substances, performance at California Family Life Center and Youth for Tomorrow, and behavior while at home on probation. The court ordered L.P. placed at YTEC. "The Court notes that during this time period the minor has had a history of running away from home and placing herself in extreme danger. . . . [¶] At this time, the Court does not believe that the minor possesses the appropriate coping skills or decision making process to successfully complete a rehabilitative program while in the community. I believe that the minor's impulsivity beckons the need for structure. I believe that currently the minor poses a danger to herself and others at this time. . . . [¶] . . . I do recognize that the minor appears to understand now the consequences of her poor decisions and is on the right track to better herself and become a better, productive member of society. [¶] The Court believes that the treatment services provided in the safe setting of YTEC will give the minor the best opportunity to succeed." L.P. filed a timely notice of appeal challenging this ruling.
D. The Challenged Ruling on the Section 778 Motion
On August 2, 2019, while her appeal of the dispositional order was pending and about two months into her placement at YTEC, L.P. filed a section 778 motion asking the court to allow her to return home and continue her rehabilitation in the community. She argued there had been a change of circumstances to justify modifying the dispositional order. In a declaration attached to her motion, she said that from June 13 to July 10, the girls had been sleeping in the same quarters as the boys due to a staff shortage. She said the girls were brought into their rooms each night around 9:30 after the boys had been sent to their rooms. She could hear the boys and girls making noises during the night, which made her "remember horrible things," made it difficult for her to sleep, and gave her night terrors when she was able to sleep. She said the sleeping arrangement made her "very depressed and anxious." She also said she had not yet received any substance abuse treatment and wasn't able to participate in the classes she was enrolled in at the local community college because her courses didn't have an online component.
The juvenile court held a hearing on the motion on September 9, 2019. The probation department's assistant director for YTEC testified about L.P.'s daily schedule and the sleeping arrangements. He said freshmen and sophomores in YTEC's program are not allowed to leave the grounds except for medical emergencies, so any college courses they enroll in should be online classes. When they become juniors in the program, they are allowed to leave the grounds to attend live college courses. Because L.P. is not a junior yet, she cannot take live courses, but may take online courses. He said L.P.'s class schedule had been adjusted and she was currently enrolled in 12 units of online courses at Riverside Community College. He said L.P. has access to the computer room to complete her online coursework, and he has seen her using the computers during his regular visits to the facility.
As for the sleeping arrangement, he said YTEC had made a temporary decision to house the girls and boys in the same quarters before L.P.'s placement began. The girls and boys slept in locked rooms on opposite sides of the quarters. To minimize interaction, the girls were brought into their rooms after the boys had been put into theirs, and they were taken from their rooms in the morning before the boys. He said YTEC returned the girls unit to separate quarters when they received a complaint from L.P.'s attorney.
YTEC's behavioral health services supervisor said the facility did not have a program specifically designed for substance abuse when L.P.'s placement began, but that they would have such a program starting in December 2019, called A New Direction. Although L.P. hadn't yet received specific substance abuse therapy, the services she was receiving—general individual counseling and dialectical behavioral therapy—addressed the underlying causes of substance abuse, like trauma and stress management. L.P. was meeting with her therapist every other week, and could meet with her more often if needed. He said L.P. will receive from YTEC the substance abuse therapy she needs to graduate from the facility, but because substance abuse is a continuing issue, she should also seek treatment through wraparound services after she graduates.
L.P. said she heard banging noises, screaming, and inappropriate sexual comments from the boys and girls during the time they shared sleeping quarters. Each room had a window in the door, and she could make eye contact with the boys across from her when they stood at their doors. She acknowledged there was only one incident, however, that was traumatic for her, and that was when she saw through her window that one of the boys and one of the girls were "either unclothed or perhaps masturbating in their doorway." The girl had been moved into a room across the quarters from L.P. because the toilet in her assigned room had broken.
L.P. said the constant yelling and banging kept her up at night and the nudity/masturbation incident "did take me back to a place mentally where I was suffering from PTSD." She continued to have nightmares and trouble sleeping even after the girls were moved to separate quarters.
L.P. said she has a good relationship with her therapist and can put in a request if she needs to see her outside of their scheduled appointments. She said she can't use the computers from 8:00 to 2:30 because high schoolers are using them then. On an average day, she would watch TV or play video games while waiting to access the computers to complete school assignments, but she acknowledged that one of her college courses has a textbook and she had access to the books in YTEC's library.
During closing statements, L.P.'s counsel argued that remaining at YTEC was not in L.P.'s best interest because the sleeping arrangements had traumatized her and triggered PTSD symptoms from her last run-away incident. She also argued that L.P. could obtain better substance abuse counseling outside the facility. The trial court denied the motion, finding it was in L.P.'s bests interests to remain at YTEC, where she could be "closely guarded and monitored while she receives appropriate services." "As noted during the dispositional hearing, the minor has been afforded multiple opportunities to receive services in the community. However, in the past, she's been unable or unwilling to comply." L.P. also appeals this ruling.
II
ANALYSIS
"Minors under the juvenile court's jurisdiction must receive the care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interest and the best interest of the public. (§ 202, subd. (b).) Additionally, minors who have committed crimes must receive the care, treatment, and guidance that holds them accountable for their behavior, is appropriate for their circumstances, and conforms with the interest of public safety and protection. (Ibid.)" (In re Oscar A. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 750, 756.) Section 778 authorizes any minor who is a ward of the juvenile court to petition the court to modify a placement order "upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence." (§ 778, subd. (a)(1).)
We review the juvenile court's placement decisions for abuse of discretion. (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154 [initial placement order]; In re Corey (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 813, 831 [ruling on a motion to modify placement].) "The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court's ruling under review. The trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious." (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711, fns. omitted.)
Placement decisions are "particularly fact intensive." (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1291.) When determining whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the placement decision, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the placement, "indulging all reasonable inferences to support the juvenile court's decision." (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.) "Nonetheless, there must be evidence in the record demonstrating both a probable benefit to the minor by [an out-of-home] commitment and the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives." (Ibid.)
Here, the record contains more than sufficient evidence to support the court's decision that L.P. would benefit from placement in a secured facility and that allowing her to remain at home was not only inappropriate, but dangerous to her health and safety. This was not the first time the court had to decide where to place L.P. When the court issued this particular placement order, it had the benefit of past experience. It knew how L.P. had fared at two other youth facilities—California Family Life Center and Youth for Tomorrow—and, more importantly, it knew how she behaved when allowed to remain at home. By the time of the disposition hearing, the court had already given L.P. two chances to remain at home, and both times she proved unable to abide by the terms of her probation. The record is replete with evidence L.P. often ran away from home. Significantly, she found herself in extreme danger the last time she left home without permission.
One of the primary objectives of the delinquency provisions in the Juvenile Court Law is to keep the child and the public safe. (E.g., In re N.C. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 81, 85.) Given what L.P. reported had happened to her when she left home without permission in April, the court's decision was not only reasonable, it may have been the only reasonable choice.
L.P. argues that removing a minor from their home '"is a matter of last resort . . . that . . . should not be ordered unless other means have failed"' (In re Donna G. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 890, 894), but that is exactly what happened here. The court gave her two chances to remain at home. During that time, she repeatedly left home without telling her mother where she was going, was truant from school over 70 times, and behaved in an aggressive and threatening manner towards both students and staff. Perhaps most concerning was L.P.'s recent social media communications with an adult male about exchanging sex acts for money. All this evidence supports the conclusion that L.P. lacked the coping and decision-making skills to safely and successfully complete a rehabilitative program while living with her mother. Indeed, after L.P.'s first arrest, her mother told law enforcement she couldn't regulate L.P.'s behavior on her own or keep her safe without outside help. That she apparently changed her mind by the time of the disposition hearing and wanted L.P. to stay with her doesn't erase the ample evidence of L.P.'s poor decision-making while living at home.
In addition, L.P. argues the evidence she presented in support of her section 778 motion showed the sleeping arrangement at YTEC exacerbated her issues with sexual abuse. She also argues the evidence demonstrated YTEC doesn't provide adequate rehabilitative resources because her computer access is extremely limited and because she didn't receive substance abuse treatment during the first two months of her stay. While the nudity/masturbation incident was understandably disturbing for L.P., the court reasonably concluded the facility remained the safest placement option. YTEC ended the coed sleeping arrangement when L.P.'s attorney complained, and the incident, though unfortunate, pales in comparison to the kind of negative and dangerous situations L.P. exposed herself to while living at home.
As to her argument of insufficient computer access, that is not a reason to modify the placement order. L.P. can make better use of her time from 8:00 to 2:30 when the computers are being used by the high schoolers. She can read or she can study using the textbook she does have. Even with limited computer access, her educational situation is better—and certainly no worse—than when she was living at home and frequently ditching class or getting into altercations with students and staff.
Similarly, the fact L.P. didn't receive formal substance abuse treatment for the first two months of her stay is not a reason to modify the placement order. During those first two months, L.P. was meeting regularly with her therapist, whom she liked and with whom she had a good relationship. Though those therapy sessions were not specific to substance abuse, the therapy was designed to address the underlying causes of substance abuse like stress and trauma. The trial court could reasonably conclude that the services offered at YTEC are more rehabilitative than what L.P. would obtain in an out-patient treatment program, where participation is voluntary.
In short, the record demonstrates L.P. presents a serious danger to herself when allowed to remain at home and, as a result, the trial court appropriately focused on her physical safety as the most important factor when making the rulings challenged in this appeal. On this record, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion.
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the appealed orders.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH
J. We concur: CODRINGTON
Acting P. J. RAPHAEL
J.