In re Gabriela M. CA1/5

Filed 2/28/14 In re Gabriela M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re Gabriela M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137869 v. (Alameda County Gabriela M., Super. Ct. No. SJ120183561) Defendant and Appellant.

Gabriela M. was determined to be a habitual truant and declared a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601, subd. (b).)1 She was placed on home probation with conditions that she “attend school . . . every day, every class, on time.” After finding Gabriela had violated conditions of her probation, the court modified the conditions to include a suspended weekend custodial program. In addition to continuing unexcused school absences, Gabriela was not abiding by home rules, was often away from home overnight without permission, and was smoking marijuana. Finding that Gabriela had violated court orders, the juvenile court remanded her to serve two weekends in custody and ordered that she be subject to global positioning system (GPS) monitoring upon her release.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

Gabriela appeals from the custodial order and from the GPS monitoring condition of her probation. She contends that, as a “status offender,” custodial confinement is permissible only on an adjudication of contempt (§ 213), and that the juvenile court failed to satisfy due process requirements before imposing contempt sanctions on her. She also contends that GPS monitoring as a probation condition in a truancy case is unauthorized and unconstitutional. We agree with her first contention, but reject the second. I. BACKGROUND Gabriela was a student in the San Lorenzo Unified School District and apparently first identified as a truant on October 6, 2010. She agreed to the terms and conditions of a school attendance review board contract, but then failed to abide by that agreement. On February 7, 2012, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (§ 601, subd. (b)) alleging that Gabriela was habitually truant, and that she had failed to comply with the mandates of her school attendance review board contract and the probation department’s truancy mediation program. At a hearing on March 16, 2012, the juvenile court advised Gabriela that “[t]he consequences for being a chronic truant is that the court will place you on probation for up to a year. You . . . will be ordered to perform twenty hours of community service, your driving privilege can be suspended or delayed for up to four years if you were to violate any court order. Also, you’re going to be ordered to attend school each day, every day, every class, on time.” Gabriela said she understood those consequences. She admitted the allegations of the petition, was declared a ward of the court and placed on home probation. The terms of her probation required that she “attend school, every day, every class, on time,” that she abide by a curfew set by her parent and “not to be out later than 6:00 p.m. without permission,” and that she “not stay away from [her] residence overnight . . . without prior permission.” A truancy progress report submitted to the court on August 14, 2012, alleged that Gabriela was absent from her home without permission for over a month, was not following household rules, and was smoking marijuana and consuming alcohol. At a hearing on August 17, the court continued Gabriela as a ward and remanded her to juvenile hall for the weekend.