People v. M.V.
225 Cal. App. 4th 1495
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- M.V., a 15-year-old, faced a wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code §602 for loitering with intent to prostitution and admitted to the offense in exchange for dismissal of prostitution charges; jurisdiction was established under §602 but she was also a juvenile dependent under §300.
- Alameda County Social Services had previously petitioned for dependency under §300 (c) and (g) due to long-standing mental health and family-issues, including maternal mental illness and a history of abuse and neglect.
- M.V. had multiple prior foster placements and ran away or was removed due to behavioral problems; she exhibited substantial trauma and had a history of substance abuse and psychiatric issues.
- The juvenile court recognized dual status (dependent and ward) and referred to a §241.1 assessment process to decide the best status for M.V., with probation and agency recommending wardship and dismissal of dependency.
- A §241.1 assessment was filed after the jurisdictional hearing and was used to support the ward determination; M.V. raised objections about timeliness and adequacy, and argued she should be treated as a victim of commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC), but the court ultimately placed her under the ward/delinquency track.
- The court acknowledged M.V.’s status as a CSEC but held that dual jurisdiction could be maintained and that the delinquency system could provide needed services; after the §241.1 process, the court declared M.V. a ward and dismissed dependency; M.V. appealed asserting various errors in the §241.1 process and the plea basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the §241.1 assessment filing and hearing | M.V. contends assessment was untimely and hearing occurred before completion | Agency/Probation claim timeliness did not violate due process and forfeiture applies | No reversible error; forfeiture applies for lack of objection, but delay did not undermine due process. |
| Adequacy of §241.1 assessment | Assessment allegedly omitted four mandated areas and higher-level placements | Record ample total evidence; deficiencies harmless and placement discussed | No error; totality of evidence supported the 241.1 determination. |
| Court’s §241.1 determination process in dual-status cases | Dual status permissible; potential procedural flaws undermining discretion | Court had broad discretion; dual jurisdiction recognized and properly exercised | Not an abuse of discretion; wardship justified given safety concerns and failed dependency placements. |
| Sufficiency of evidence and factual basis for the admission | Evidence insufficient to support loitering charge; factual basis questionable | Record supports intent and loitering; factual basis found; waiver rules apply but record suffices | Sufficient evidence and factual basis; admission upheld. |
| Ineffective assistance and CSEC labeling impact | Counsel failed to raise meritorious issues; CSEC status should affect processing | Counsel acted within discretion; CSEC status did not mandate a particular disposition | No ineffective assistance; proper discretionary handling under law. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (Cal. 2012) (dual jurisdiction and duties of dependency and wardship precedents; standard of review)
- D.M. v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Cal. App. 2009) (dual status and §241.1 assessment framework)
- Marcus G., 73 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. App. 1999) (dual status procedures; permissibility of determining status under §241.1)
- In re Joey G., 206 Cal.App.4th 343 (Cal. App. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for §241.1 determinations; dual jurisdiction context)
- Palmer v. California, 58 Cal.4th 110 (Cal. 2013) (factual-basis considerations for admissions in juvenile proceedings)
- Crystal J., 12 Cal.App.4th 407 (Cal. App. 1993) (waiver of mandatory assessments when no objection; due process considerations)