BACKGROUND
Following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
At the May 2018 disposition hearing, Minor's counsel requested placement at a
The juvenile court adopted the probation department's recommendation of a YOTP commitment: "I believe that the Youthful Offender Treatment
The court declined to order a fixed term of commitment: "YOTP is not a program that necessarily is a 10-month program. There may be programming or different levels that add up to ten months, but the reality is everyone goes through YOTP at the[ir] particular pace. Not everyone progresses to the next level оr phase at exactly the same time and it really depends on how well each person, individual is doing in the program itself. [¶] ... YOTP is meant to have programming that is meant to be completed and there are times that one would not advance through the program within this set time frame. ... It's unclear exactly how long it will tаke to finish the program. So I don't believe it was ever meant to be exactly a ten-month program. [¶] ... [¶] ... I'm hopeful that [Minor] will progress through the various phases successfully without any pauses, but again, I can't predict exactly when he will finish the program. The key is that he finish all the programming at YOTP." The court later noted that if Minor "has what would be called a perfect program, sounds like it would be closer to ten months. If he does not have a perfect program I can't say it will be that amount. It could be longer. The key is to completely, successfully complete all phases of the program, and obviously there [is] the mаximum period he could be held and that would be basically until his 21st birthday, and I'm sure he will have completed YOTP before then." The court adopted the probation officer's recommended orders on this issue without modification.
At the end of the disposition hearing, the court set a "YOTP review date" for December 2018, sevеn months away, "to see how [Minor] is doing."
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the disposition order delegates to the probation officer
To support his contention that the probation officer alone determines whether a minor successfully completes YOTP, Minor points to YOTP's location in juvenile hall
Robert M. began by noting that, when a minor is committed to juvenile hall, "[i]t is clear from the statutory scheme ... that the juvenile court retains supervision and control over a minor," and "[t]hat supervision and control is not altered by the minor's participation in" a custodial treatment program ordered by the juvenile court. (Robert M., supra,
Minor argues Robert M. is inapposite because it addressed a different argument than the оne presented here. In Robert M. , the juvenile court ordered the minor committed to juvenile hall but housed at the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) pursuant to section 1752.16.
Indeed, the juvenile court exercised that retained authority in scheduling a "YOTP review hearing" seven months after disposition. This review hearing further undermines Minor's assertion that the court delegated to the probation officer the authority to determine whethеr Minor has successfully completed YOTP. Following this hearing, the court will presumably schedule further hearings necessary to the exercise of its retained authority over whether and when Minor successfully completes YOTP.
Minor argues a YOTP "handbook" demonstrates that the probation officer determines the length of Minоr's commitment. Minor requests that we take judicial notice of this handbook; the People oppose the request solely on relevance grounds. As explained below, we find the document relevant. We need not decide whether, as Minor contends, the handbook's descriptions of YOTP are judicially noticeable as "[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy." ( Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) Even so assuming, the handbook supports our analysis rejeсting his challenge. Minor points to the handbook's statement: "Your commitment, as ordered by the court is for the maximum custody time allowed based on your charges or a period not to exceed your 21st birthday, whichever comes first. A court review will be set by your Deputy Probation Officer prior to your successful completion of phase three, your DPO [Deputy Probation Officer] will then inform the court of your progress, and whether you should be released to Phase Four, GPS Supervision / Community
According to Minor, the handbook provides that "only when probation determines a child has successfully completed phase three will it set a court review recommending release to phase four." In fact, the handbook states the court review will be set "prior to your successful completion of phase three," not after successful completion. (Italics added.) To the extent the handbook assumes the probation officer will determine whether the minor has successfully completed phases one and two, Minor concedes the juvenile court could "overrule a phase decision by probation" but argues the authority to determine a minor's successful completion has nonetheless been impermissibly delegated to the probation officеr. The logical extension of Minor's argument is that any decision impacting a minor's progress through YOTP cannot be made by probation in the first instance, even if the court will hold review
We note also that, at the review heаrings, Minor may inform the juvenile court if he disagrees with the probation officer's assessment of his progress to date. In addition, at any time, Minor (or his parents or attorney) can file a section 778 petition requesting the juvenile court modify the disposition order. (§ 778, subd. (a)(1) ["[a]ny parent or other person having an interest in а child who is a ward of the juvenile court or the child himself or herself through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a ward of the juvenile court for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court"]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.60(e)(1) [§ 778 petition can be filed by, inter alia, parent, child, or child's attorney].) For example, if Minor contends the probation officer is unfairly assessing Minor's performance in YOTP, this would appear to constitute a changed circumstance from the implicit assumption in the dispositional order that the probation officer will fairly assess Minor's performance.
In sum, the disposition order commits Minоr to juvenile hall until age 21, but provides he will be released earlier if he successfully completes YOTP. Under the statutory scheme, the juvenile court retains the supervisory authority to determine whether and when Minor successfully completes YOTP and, therefore, whether and when he will be released early from juvenile hall. The juvenile court scheduled a review hearing in the exercise of that supervisory authority. If Minor believes the probation officer is unfairly assessing his performance in the program, he can bring the issue to the juvenile court at the scheduled review hearing or by filing a section 778 petition. The commitment оrder does not delegate to the probation officer the discretion to determine the length of Minor's commitment.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
BURNS, J.
Notes
All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Minor was 16 years old at the time of disposition.
The court's comments clearly contemplate that Minor will be released if and when he successfully cоmpletes YOTP, and the parties so assume.
We also need not decide whether Minor forfeited the argument, as the People contend.
We grant Minor's request for judicial notice of a Contra Costa County Probation Department publication which states, "YOTP is a 30-bed boys treatment program located insidе Juvenile Hall." The People do not dispute that YOTP is located in juvenile hall.
Section 1752.16 was enacted in response to a California Supreme Court case limiting the offenses for which a minor could be committed to DJF, authorizing such arrangements for wards who were in the custody of DJF when the case was decidеd. (See Robert M., supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1181-1182,
According to the handbook, YOTP is composed of an orientation followed by four "phases," the fourth of which is completed outside of juvenile hall. For convenience, we will continue to refer to the successful completiоn needed for Minor's early release as that of the YOTP program, rather than of phase three.
Minor also argues that an extended commitment because of his failure to successfully complete YOTP within ten months is, in effect, a commitment for violating his probation conditions without notice or a hearing, as required by section 777 and due process. Section 777 provides: "An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent ... and directing ... commitment to a county institution ... shall be made only after a noticed hearing." The juvenile court's disposition order does not authоrize the probation officer to "chang[e] or modify[ ] a previous order" or "remov[e]" Minor from the physical custody of his parents. Instead, it orders Minor committed to juvenile hall until his 21st birthday, unless he successfully completes YOTP, in which case he shall be released earlier. The noticed hearing for probation violations required by section 777 and due process has no bearing on the case at hand.