In re C.M. CA3

Filed 7/24/14 In re C.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C073579 Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV132865)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The minor C.M., a ward of the juvenile court, appeals an order committing him to a “Level B” out-of-state placement. He contends this commitment was an abuse of discretion, because the record does not show in-state placements were unavailable or inadequate to meet his needs, alternative level in-state placements were not actively sought, and out-of-state placement is contrary to the primary objective of juvenile court law. We disagree and affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In June 2011, the district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)1 charging the minor with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)). The minor admitted a misdemeanor burglary and the juvenile court dismissed the theft charge. The juvenile court placed the minor on six months’ probation and released him to his father. The minor’s parents refused to pick him up and the minor was taken to the children’s receiving home on July 28, 2011. Approximately one month later, on August 24, 2011, the district attorney filed a petition alleging the minor had violated the conditions of probation (§ 777) by leaving the children’s receiving home on six occasions and possessing marijuana. On September 6, 2011, the district attorney filed a subsequent juvenile wardship petition alleging the minor had committed another burglary. The minor admitted the burglary allegation as a misdemeanor and the juvenile court dismissed the violation of probation. The minor was released to his parents with electronic monitoring, under the supervision of probation. Once again, the minor’s parents refused to pick the minor up from juvenile hall. The trial court modified the order, omitting the electronic monitoring requirement, and the minor was released to his father. Within two weeks, on November 1, 2011, the probation officer filed a motion to modify custody status and issue an arrest warrant request because the minor had left his father’s home without permission and his whereabouts were unknown. The juvenile court issued the arrest warrant. The minor was arrested on November 8, 2011, and detained in the Sacramento County Youth Detention Facility. The juvenile court ordered the matter referred to the Interagency Management Authorization Committee (IMAC) for