Khalid B. v. Khalid B.

Filed 2/2/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re KHALID B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KHALID B., A140708 Defendant and Appellant. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW126429)

Welfare and Institutions Code section 727.1, subdivision (b)(1) (section 727.1(b)(1))1 provides that a court “may not” order placement of a ward at an out-of-state facility unless “[i]n-state facilities or programs have been determined to be unavailable or inadequate to meet the needs of the minor.” After appellant, born July 1998, admitted an allegation in a section 602 petition that he committed involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b)), the juvenile court placed him in a facility in Iowa. Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing an out-of-state placement because there is no substantial evidence in-state facilities were unavailable or inadequate to meet his needs. We agree. BACKGROUND In November 2012, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a section 602 petition alleging appellant committed involuntary manslaughter and assault by means likely to

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

1

produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).2 The allegations were based on an incident during which appellant struck a man, who died after hitting his head on the pavement. In January 2013, a second petition was filed alleging appellant committed another assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The petition was based on an incident during which appellant assaulted another detainee at juvenile hall. In October 2013, following testimony by a police officer and eyewitness regarding the basis for the November 2012 petition, appellant admitted the involuntary manslaughter allegation. The balance of the November 2012 petition and the entirety of the January 2013 petition were dismissed. In a November 2013 dispositional report, the juvenile probation department (the Department) recommended that wardship be declared and appellant be placed at an out- of-state facility. On November 20, 2013, appellant filed a written opposition to the recommendation. The juvenile court held a contested dispositional hearing on November 22. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and authorized the Department to seek an out-of-state placement. On December 19, the Department informed the court appellant had been accepted at a facility in Iowa. On January 9, 2014, the juvenile court ordered appellant placed at the Iowa facility. DISCUSSION “ ‘We review a juvenile court’s commitment decision for abuse of discretion, indulging all reasonable inferences to support its decision.’ [Citation.] ‘ “[D]iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of all reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” ’ [Citation.] We will not disturb the juvenile court’s findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. [Citation.] ‘ “In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court