Opinion
A165801 A166420
07-13-2023
In re ISAIAH T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. ISAIAH T., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J44395
TUCHER, P.J.
Isaiah T. (Minor) appeals orders of the juvenile court placing him in a secure youth treatment facility and denying his request to be moved to a different program at his 30-day review. He contends there is no evidence that the program to which he was committed was fully functioning or would provide the services he needed to advance his rehabilitation. We are sensitive to Minor's concerns and think it will be important for the trial court to confirm, in periodic reviews, that the program in which Minor is placed is actually meeting his needs. But we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's initial decision to place Minor in the new juvenile hall-based program called RISE (Reaching Into Successful Endeavors), or in the decision to leave him there at the 30-day review. We accordingly affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Petition and Transfer
The Sacramento County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), alleging Minor, then 17 years old, committed two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); counts 1 &2); two counts of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a); counts 3 &7); two counts of unlawfully carrying a firearm capable of being concealed on the person (former Pen. Code, § 29610; counts 4 &8); and two counts of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(3); counts 5 &6). As to counts 1 and 2, it was alleged Minor personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury or death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), &(d)); as to counts 5 and 6 it was alleged that the firearm and ammunition were readily accessible and in Minor's immediate possession and that the firearm was loaded; and it was alleged Minor was not the registered owner of the firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 25850, subd. (c)(6) [counts 3 &7], 25400, subd. (c)(6) [counts 5 &6]). It appears the petition was later amended to add two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm as counts 2 and 4 (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), and some of the other counts were renumbered.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
According to the probation report, counts 1 through 4 arose from an August 20, 2020 incident in which Minor was one of three people who shot two victims at a public park. The remaining counts were based on weapons and ammunition found when Minor was arrested on December 3, 2020.
Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Minor admitted count 2 as amended, assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), and admitted he personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d), and the remaining counts were dismissed. The matter was then transferred to Solano County for disposition.
II. Disposition
In his dispositional brief, Minor asked to be placed not in the secure youth treatment facility called RISE but in the Solano County Probation Department's Challenge Academy program, which he described as a ninemonth locked program designed to address the rehabilitative and developmental needs of adolescents who had engaged in serious, often violent, conduct.
The District Attorney, on the other hand, urged the court to commit Minor to RISE, "due to his need for comprehensive intervention and treatment services in a secure environment of a dosage and duration which can only be delivered at the RISE program," and explaining that because of his age, 18 years old, Minor was not eligible to participate in the Challenge Academy.
A contested dispositional hearing was held on May 18, 2022. A senior juvenile correctional counselor at the Challenge Academy testified about the program. It is located in the main juvenile hall campus, and it has a separate pod and dedicated staff, most of whom have been with the program for more than three years. It is designed for youth who have committed serious offenses. There was space available. The program lasts nine months, and each young person is assigned to a juvenile correctional counselor. The program also has a mental health staff and teachers, mentoring, restorative justice, religious services, a parenting class, and college-level classes and trade programs. It offers cognitive behavioral therapy and programs known as Thinking for a Change, which teaches youth to stop and think before they act, and Courage to Change, or interactive journaling. Each minor at Challenge Academy receives the same curriculum, rather than one specifically tailored to each individual, but a mental health clinician is assigned if needed. Challenge Academy includes programs to assist minors with returning to the community, such as career development and preparing to return to home life. Young people have successfully gone on to live crime-free lives in the community after participating in Challenge Academy.
One of the rules of Challenge Academy is that a minor must finish the program before the age of 19. The program includes youth who are 18 years old but none who are 19 years old. RISE, on the other hand, which is also located at the juvenile detention facility, has an age limit of 25 years.
The supervisor of the RISE program testified that RISE is a very new program, developed as a result of the closure of the state's Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities. Minors receive drug and mental health screening, and a multi-disciplinary team, comprised of a probation officer, correctional counselor, county Department of Education personnel, and mental health, medical, and social worker staff, is assigned to help the youth through the program. Each youth receives an individualized treatment plan based on the results of assessments. The RISE program then provides programming to help youths modify their behavior in preparation for return to the community, including cognitive behavioral therapy, Courage to Change, Thinking for a Change, restorative justice programming, aggression replacement therapy, and a "Reasoning and Rehabilitation" program. RISE includes a flexible education component; youths may attend school full time or, like Minor, enroll part-time. RISE also includes (or will include) a coding and robotics program, a trade program, and assistance with birth certificates, social security cards, driver's licenses, and identification cards. Family counseling and family visits take place throughout the program, and individual counseling is available if needed. Each minor moves through the program based on individual progress.
At the time of the dispositional hearing, RISE had two participants, housed in the Sequoia pod with the general population of older predisposition minors, although the plan was for RISE to move into its own quarters with a more home-like environment when it had more participants. The participants follow the same schedule as those in the general population, and some of the programs available to RISE participants, such as Thinking for a Change, behavioral management, and a point reward system based on behavior, are available to all youth in the facility. There was currently no dedicated RISE staff, and no one had yet successfully completed the program.
A probation officer who prepared a dispositional report testified that the probation department recommended the RISE program for Minor. The main reason for the recommendation was that Minor was too old for the Challenge Academy program, since he would not be able to complete the program before his nineteenth birthday, which would take place in July 2022. RISE and Challenge Academy are the only custodial programs at juvenile hall. Juvenile hall is meant for temporary housing, and it is not the intended therapeutic environment for RISE.
In the first year and a half after he was detained (i.e., through May 18, 2022), Minor completed cognitive and behavioral therapy, in the form of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation program, and motivational enhancement therapy. He graduated from high school, receiving excellent grades in his final semester, and he signed up for summer-school college courses. Minor completed numerous other programs while in custody, including gang awareness and prevention, and programs focusing on anti-recidivism and alternatives to violence.
Minor told the probation officer that he had been affiliated with a gang at age 14, and that multiple family members, including his mother, father, grandfather, uncles, and cousins, were gang members or affiliates. He had been engaging in delinquent behavior, such as fighting, school suspensions, gang activity, and gun activity, since a young age, despite programming through probation and counseling before his current offense. Minor said he wanted to change his lifestyle.
The juvenile court declared Minor a ward of the court on July 18, 2022 and committed him to the RISE program with a baseline of two years and a nine-year maximum term of confinement. In case No. A160801, Minor appealed this dispositional order.
III. Review Hearing
A review hearing took place on August 17, 2022. The probation department reported that a multi-disciplinary team meeting took place on August 11, 2022, and the team developed an individualized rehabilitation plan tailored to Minor's needs. He would be offered multiple programs, including Courage to Change, Reasoning and Rehabilitation, aggression replacement therapy, a men's group, restorative justice, individual counseling, mentoring services, a job readiness program, independent living and wellness skills, and substance abuse intervention. At the August 17 hearing, the juvenile court told the parties the probation department's report did not demonstrate the necessary individualized program. The court set the matter for a further hearing at which the probation officer would provide more information.
On August 30, 2022, the probation officer submitted a written update regarding Minor's rehabilitation plan. The probation officer reported that Minor had received or was receiving the following services: A case management inventory was completed on May 3, 2022. Drug screening was completed on July 29, 2022, and showed no further assessment was needed. A mental health screening, completed on July 29, 2022, showed a need for further assessment, and Minor was referred to a mental health clinician for a mental health evaluation, which had not yet been completed. Minor completed aggression replacement training, a 30-session cognitive behavioral group aiming to strengthen social skills, anger control, and moral reasoning, on August 16, 2022. Also in August, he completed three "Carey Guide[s]" on anger, including recognizing physical signs of anger, making connections, and emotional triggers. Currently, Minor was participating in a restorative justice program that was offered to all youth in the Department of Juvenile Facilities. He was working on Carey guides focused on identifying strengths and using strengths to face day-to-day challenges. He was participating in a weekly men's mentoring group.
Carey guides were described at the dispositional hearing as worksheets, or "a one-on-one tool that staff work with the youth to . . . address[] specific areas in a youth's life that could be identified as potentially high risk."
Projected interventions included a reasoning and rehabilitation program with a start date to be determined by RISE staff, future Carey guides as determined by RISE staff, Courage to Change interactive journals, and a pending mentorship program. Minor was expected to begin weekly individual therapy sessions and a program focused on "Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Employment" in September 2022. He would have access to crisis intervention, psychiatrists, and medication if needed. He had previously participated in wellness workshops, which were paused during the summer but were expected to resume in September 2022. The workshop topics included social emotional learning, mental health, reducing bias and stigma, anger and emotional intelligence, mindfulness, understanding trauma, and stress response.
Before his commitment to RISE, Minor completed a sociology class, and he was currently enrolled in two classes and had been offered tutoring services through the Solano County Office of Education. RISE was working to develop a trades program that would provide skills and certification for a career in construction. Upon Minor's release, he could be referred to services to assist with independent living, such as employment services, housing assistance, and referrals to appropriate community resources.
The August 30 report indicated that, unless otherwise stated, "[c]ognitive interventions are facilitated by RISE/JDF [juvenile detention facility] staff," who "have been trained to deliver these services by the appropriate entity." It also explained that "[t]here is no set sequence in which interventions are delivered. Interventions are cycled and offered based on the need of the youth in JDF and RISE. Continuously during his commitment, there will some forms of Cognitive Intervention being offered."
A hearing took place on August 31, and Minor's probation officer testified. Although RISE offered a "plethora of services," the programs were not all offered at the same time. Minor had not been selected to participate in the on-going Reasoning and Rehabilitation group because he previously participated in aggression replacement training. He would begin additional services in September.
The juvenile court denied Minor's request to be moved to Challenge Academy and set a six-month review for November 9, 2022. In case No. A166420, Minor appealed this order.
On Minor's motion, we consolidated the two appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Background
In recent years, the Legislature has overhauled juvenile wardship law by closing DJJ and transferring jurisdiction over youthful offenders to counties, with the stated purpose of ensuring minors are closer to their families and communities and receive age-appropriate treatment. (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 907; In re T.O. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 252, 262-263; § 736.5; Sen. Bill 823, Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 1.)
A further change to the juvenile law, effective May 14, 2021, established requirements for counties' secure youth treatment facilities. (§ 875, added Stats. 2021 ch. 18, § 12 (Sen. Bill 92), amended by Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 41.) Among them, such a facility must "provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education" for wards; it may be either a standalone facility or a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility "that is configured and programmed to serve" the youth committed to it; and it must comply with applicable regulatory standards. (§ 875, subd. (g).) Among the general standards applicable when Minor was committed, each youth must have the opportunity for at least one hour of daily programming, including "trauma focused, cognitive, evidence-based, best practice interventions that are culturally relevant and linguistically appropriate, or pro-social interventions and activities designed to reduce recidivism," based on the youth's individual needs. (15 Cal. Code Regs., § 1371(a).) The programs may include, among other things, cognitive behavior interventions, management of stress and trauma, anger management, conflict resolution, trauma-related interventions, victim awareness, self-improvement, art, creative writing or self-expression, restorative justice or civil engagement, and career and leadership opportunities. (Ibid.)
Section 875 also sets criteria that must be satisfied before a ward is committed to a secure youth treatment facility. There is no dispute that the first two criteria are met-Minor was found to be a ward of the court based on one of a list of specified offenses committed at age 14 or older, and that offense is the Minor's most recent adjudicated offense. (§ 875, subd. (a)(1) &(2).)
Before committing a youth to a secure facility, the court must also make a finding that no less restrictive alternative disposition is suitable. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).) In making this determination, the court must consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and anyone else designated to advise on the appropriate disposition, and it must base its determination on several additional criteria: the severity of the most recent offense or offenses; the ward's previous delinquent history; "[w]hether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward"; whether a less restrictive disposition would meet the goals of rehabilitation and public safety; and the ward's age, maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and disabilities or special needs. (§ 875, subds. (a)(3)(A)-(E).)
Not surprisingly, the criteria for determining whether to commit a youth to a secure facility overlap with the criteria that apply in determining, as a general matter, the proper disposition for a ward. Those criteria include the minor's age, the circumstances and gravity of the offense, the minor's (§ 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.790(h)(3)(A)-(D).)
In committing a ward, the juvenile court must set a baseline term of confinement representing the time necessary to meet the ward's developmental and treatment needs and to prepare the ward for return to the community under probation supervision. (§ 875, subd. (b).) That baseline, however, may be modified in semi-annual progress review hearings, at each of which the baseline term may be reduced by up to six months. (§ 875, subds. (b), (e)(1).)
A decision to commit a minor must be supported by evidence of probable benefit to the minor, as well as evidence that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate. (See In re Miguel C., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 906 [D]J commitment]; In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.) This review "is particularly fact intensive and requires a fully informed analysis by the juvenile court of the minor's needs and the programs' services." (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1291.)
We review a juvenile court's placement decision for abuse of discretion. (In re Nichole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.) A court abuses its discretion if its factual findings find no support in the evidence. (Ibid.) In our review, we examine the record in light of the purposes of the juvenile court law. (Ibid.)
II. Commitment to RISE
Minor contends that, under these standards, the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the RISE program rather than Challenge previous delinquent history, the safety of the setting, whether it is the least restrictive or most family-like environment that is appropriate for the minor and available; whether it is close to the parent's home; and whether it is the environment most suited to the minor's special needs and best interests. Academy. That is because, he argues, RISE is a new, untested program that no one has yet completed, its services are still being developed, it lacks dedicated staff or separate quarters, youth in the program follow the same schedule as others in the Sequoia pod, and RISE's services are available to youth in juvenile hall's general population.
This contention fails. First, the record is unambiguous that Minor is not eligible for the Challenge Academy because he would not be able to complete the program by age 19. Minor turned 19 in July 2022, just days after his commitment hearing occurred. He was by then a high school graduate enrolled in college courses. In light of the Challenge Academy's rules and Minor's individual circumstances, the court could reasonably conclude he was simply too old for the Challenge Academy.
The RISE program offers some of the same advantages as the Challenge Academy, but is open to older youths. Both programs are in a secure facility, which was appropriate for Minor because, as the juvenile court explained, Minor's offenses were serious, resulting in injuries to two people and exposing others in the park to potential injury, and Minor had a prior history of delinquent behavior. RISE offers many of the same programs as the Challenge Academy, but houses participants among older youths in the Sequoia pod.
A second reason the juvenile court cited in choosing the RISE program as the better placement for Minor is that RISE, unlike Challenge Academy, offers an individualized program, including mental health and drug screening and a multi-disciplinary team to assess the minor's needs and develop an individualized treatment plan. RISE offers intensive behavioral change, Thinking for a Change, Reasoning and Rehabilitation, cognitive behavioral therapy, aggression replacement therapy, restorative justice, and job readiness, some of which are not available at Challenge Academy. The record supports these findings, and in light of Minor's acknowledged needs, the court did not abuse its discretion in preferring the RISE program for this reason as well.
We recognize the evidence that the RISE program is new, has only two prior participants, and does not yet have its own quarters or dedicated staff. But separate quarters and full-time staff are not requirements for a successful program, and Minor does not show that the RISE program fails to measure up to the standards set in section 875, subdivision (g) and its implementing regulations. (See 15 Cal. Code Regs., § 1371(a).) We conclude that the record as a whole is sufficient to support a finding that Minor would likely benefit from RISE and that it is a more appropriate setting for him than Challenge Academy.
III. Denial of Transfer Request
Minor also contends the evidence does not support the juvenile court's order, made at the review hearing, denying his request to be transferred from the "[u]ntested" RISE program to the "fully functioning" Challenge Academy or to another less restrictive program. He points out that he engaged in numerous services before he was committed to RISE and graduated from high school during that time, and he argues Challenge Academy was better suited to help him continue his progress. And, he contends, he received only minimal treatment in the six weeks between his commitment to RISE and the juvenile court's ruling at the review hearing and there is no indication he was receiving or would receive assistance for substance abuse or gang involvement.
We see no abuse of discretion. The record supports a conclusion that Minor was receiving and was expected to continue to receive services that would benefit him. In the six weeks since his commitment to RISE, he had received mental health and substance abuse screening. The mental health screening showed he needed a further evaluation to determine the appropriate treatment plan and level of care, and an evaluation was pending. While in RISE, Minor completed a 30-session anger replacement program and three Carey guides directed toward recognizing and managing anger, and he was currently engaged in three further programs, restorative justice, further Carey guides, and a men's mentoring group. He was enrolled in college-level classes part-time. He would be offered further services, including Reasoning and Rehabilitation, further Carey guides, Courage to Change interactive journals, and a mentorship program to which he had applied. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude that these resources, completed, ongoing, and projected, were of probable benefit to Minor.
We are thus unpersuaded that it was an abuse of discretion not to transfer Minor to Challenge Academy or another less restrictive program. Not only does the record support a finding that RISE would be of probable benefit to Minor, but Minor does not meet Challenge Academy's age standards. And Minor does not identify any program that would be more suitable. He wisely does not argue that he did not require a custodial program and, as we have explained, the record shows that RISE and Challenge Academy are the only custodial programs available in Solano County.
But the County cannot use Minor's age-based ineligibility for the Challenge Academy as an excuse for failing to provide him robust rehabilitative services. We are troubled by evidence that Minor had not had, by the time of his 30-day review, access to more of the assessments and programming RISE purports to offer. For example, although it was more than six weeks after his placement at RISE and a month after his initial mental health screening, Minor was still waiting for a mental health evaluation and treatment plan from a clinician. And although the court had identified gang intervention services as one of Minor's needs, there was no mention in the probation officer's description of services planned for Minor of any such program. Minor is a young man who was "involved in every prosocial program that they offered" him in the Sacramento Juvenile Hall before his transfer to Solano. He needs to continue taking challenging classes and doing well in them, and the county needs to make good on its promise to offer a robust suite of services appropriate to Minor's needs. Especially because the RISE program is new and does not yet have a track record of success, it is vital that the juvenile court continue to hold them both to account, which we note the court promised to do in revisiting the appropriateness of Minor's placement at a six-month review hearing in November 2022.
Because we conclude the juvenile court's orders of July and August 2022 were within the court's discretion, we need not consider whether Minor was prejudiced by any abuse of that discretion.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: PETROU, J., RODRÍGUEZ, J.