In re N.H. CA3

Filed 8/28/25 In re N.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re N.H., a Person Coming C101645 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV142097)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After minor N.H. admitted to committing simple battery, the juvenile court placed him on probation without adjudging him a ward of the court. Fourteen months later, the juvenile court found that minor failed to comply with a probation condition and ordered wardship. On appeal, minor contends the juvenile court’s “failure to comply” finding was an abuse of discretion. But whether minor failed to comply with a probation condition is a factual finding we review for substantial evidence, not abuse of discretion. Because

1

substantial evidence supports the finding, we affirm the juvenile court’s order. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People filed a section 602 petition alleging that minor committed a single count of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)) but later reduced the count to simple battery (Pen. Code, § 242). After minor admitted the reduced count, the juvenile court placed him on six months’ probation under section 725, subdivision (a) (section 725(a)). Among other requirements, the probation terms required minor to “enroll in and successfully complete counseling to address sexual boundaries awareness.” To complete that counseling, minor was referred to a private agency that offered a program consisting of 24 counseling sessions over a six-month period (the program). Although minor’s first progress report was positive, problems appeared in the next report. Specifically, in October 2023, the agency’s counselor (first counselor) reported that although minor was participating and engaged in the material, he sometimes had trouble comprehending it, was two chapters behind, and had about 20 weeks left of material still to cover, according to the curriculum (the October 2023 report). At the end of the six-month probation period, the court held a section 725(a) compliance review hearing and discussed the October 2023 report. Minor’s counsel noted that minor had completed 18 counseling sessions and questioned how minor could have 20 weeks left in the program. Pointing to minor’s learning disability, minor’s counsel argued that minor had substantially complied with the program by doing what was reasonable and within his capacity and requested that minor’s probation be terminated. The prosecution countered that it was “really important” for minor to complete the program, “not just halfway,” so that “this sort of incident doesn’t happen again” and requested that minor be adjudged a ward of the court. The juvenile court found that although the minor had made his best efforts to comply, the main goal was rehabilitation and minor’s partial completion of the program would not “lead to his full