California Court of Appeal Oct 21, 2015 No. D068942; D068943Unpublished
Before: McConnell, Benke, O'Rourke
Filed 10/21/15 In re Bianca S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re BIANCA S. D068942
on (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. JCM237690) Habeas Corpus.
In re D.C. D068943
on (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. JCM237689) Habeas Corpus.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in habeas corpus. Roderick W. Shelton, Judge.
Relief granted.
Dependency Legal Group of San Diego and John P. McCurley for petitioners.
Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, and Samantha Begovich, Deputy District
Attorney, for respondent.
Bianca S. and D.C. (collectively petitioners) seek habeas corpus relief from orders
of the juvenile court detaining them in Juvenile Hall while they await further proceedings
on petitions seeking to declare them wards of the court. We grant the requested relief.
BACKGROUND
Petitioners are 13-year-old girls who are dependents of the juvenile court. (See
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) While they were residing at the Polinsky Children's Center,
they knocked over a vending machine and took items from inside it. When staff
confronted petitioners, they fled but later returned to the Center. Staff then reported the
incident to police, who arrested petitioners and booked them into Juvenile Hall.
report contained any explanation, and the record does not support the existence of any of
these grounds. The allegations against petitioners concern minor property offenses; these
are first offenses for both petitioners; and nothing suggests petitioners, 13-year-old girls,
have the means or are likely to flee the county. The facts that the probation officer
overrode the detention risk assessments solely because petitioners are dependents whose
social workers were unavailable and the juvenile court granted the social workers
permission to place petitioners in alternative locations should suitable ones become
available strongly suggest the court ordered petitioners detained in Juvenile Hall based on
4
the facts they are dependents of the court and their social workers have been unable to
find placements for them. This was error: "If a minor is a dependent of the court
pursuant to Section 300, the court's decision to detain shall not be based on the minor's
status as a dependent of the court or the child welfare services department's inability to
provide a placement for the minor." (Id., §§ 635, subd. (b)(2), 636, subd. (a), italics
added.) The juvenile court should have ordered the release of petitioners to the custody
of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency for placement in a licensed
or approved setting. (Id., § 635, subd. (c)(2).)
DISPOSITION
The relief requested by petitioners is granted. The juvenile court is directed to
vacate the September 25, 2015 orders that petitioners be detained in Juvenile Hall and to
enter new orders releasing them to the custody of the San Diego County Health and
Human Services Agency for appropriate placement. This court's order of October 2
temporarily staying the juvenile court's September 25 orders and temporarily releasing
petitioners from custody is vacated.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The juvenile court erred by detaining dependent minors in Juvenile Hall based on their status as dependents and the lack of available social service placements, as such detention requires a showing of urgent necessity.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred in ordering the detention of dependent minors in Juvenile Hall pending further proceedings.
Disposition. Relief granted.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the court's decision to detain shall not be based on the minor's status as a dependent of the court or the child welfare services department's inability to provide a placement for the minor.”
“No such urgent necessity was shown in this case.”