In re Edward C. CA1/5

Filed 12/30/14 In re Edward C. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EDWARD C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137899 v. EDWARD C., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW106101) Defendant and Appellant.

Edward C. (Minor) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders entered in a proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.1 The court below ordered Minor to pay restitution for damage he had caused to Grammercy House and Bay Area Youth Center, which were victims of Minor’s vandalism. Minor, who was adjudicated a dependent child in 1999 and entrusted to the care of the San Francisco Human Services Agency (HSA), contends the juvenile delinquency court erred in refusing to make HSA jointly and severally liable for payment of restitution. He argues HSA is his guardian and may therefore be held liable under section 730.7, subdivision (a). We conclude we need not reach Minor’s arguments on appeal. Minor concedes HSA is a public entity and is thus ordinarily immune from liability except as expressly

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

provided by statute. But Minor makes no effort to analyze the issue of immunity, and we will not decide a novel issue of law without full briefing by the parties. We also will not reach Minor’s alternative equal protection claim. This claim is forfeited because Minor did not raise it below. Accordingly, we affirm the orders from which the appeal is taken. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Since Minor challenges only the juvenile court’s restitution orders, the facts of the underlying offenses are largely irrelevant to the issues on appeal, so we summarize them only briefly. In four separate section 602 proceedings, Minor admitted having committing criminal offenses. In two of the proceedings, he admitted charges of misdemeanor vandalism. He stipulated to payment of restitution in the amount of $5,752.53 to Grammercy House and $1,725 to Bay Area Youth Center, the victims of his vandalism. In the juvenile court Minor argued that HSA—to whose care he was entrusted upon becoming a dependent in 1999—qualified as his “guardian” under section 730.7, subdivision (a), which imposes joint and several liability for payment of restitution on “a parent or guardian who has joint or sole legal and physical custody and control of the minor[.]” Minor argued the agency was therefore jointly and severally liable for his restitution obligations.2 At the hearing on victim restitution, the juvenile court rejected the contention and held HSA was not liable for the restitution payments. Minor’s counsel renewed the argument at a subsequent hearing. Counsel informed the court that he could not find either statutory or case law dealing with the issue, but he argued HSA should be liable because he believed it had insurance that would cover “this sort of incident.” The juvenile court again denied the request. Minor was granted probation in all four matters and required to pay restitution. He filed a timely notice of appeal on February 14, 2013.