In re P.D. CA6

Filed 11/19/15 In re P.D. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re P.D., a Person Coming Under the H041559 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 3-13-JV40242B)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 15, 2013, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that minor P.D. possessed a knife on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count 1), exhibited a knife (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1); count 2), possessed a razor blade on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count 3), and exhibited a razor blade (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1); count 4). On June 15, 2014, minor admitted counts 1 and 3, and counts 2 and 4 were dismissed. On July 14, 2014, the juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and placed minor on probation with various conditions, including 52 days of electronic monitoring.

On July 16, 2014, minor removed his ankle monitor and absconded from his family home. A notice of probation violation was filed. On July 31, 2014, minor admitted that he violated the probation condition pertaining to electronic monitoring. Following a contested disposition hearing on September 4, 2014, the juvenile court continued minor as a ward of the court and ordered minor to be placed in a group home. Minor now appeals from the disposition order, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing him in a group home. As set forth below, we will affirm. BACKGROUND The Disposition Report A disposition report, prepared by minor’s probation officer on August 29, 2014, recommended that minor be placed outside of his family home. The disposition report explained that minor was subject to the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) between August 2013 and June 2014, but minor failed to abide by the rules of the EMP. The disposition report specified that minor left his family home without permission in October 2013, minor tested positive for cocaine and marijuana, minor cut off his ankle monitor and absconded from the family home in December 2013, minor hid a knife under his mattress in March 2014, and minor again cut off his ankle monitor and absconded from the family home in March 2014. The disposition report noted that minor’s mother and stepfather had criminal histories and had abused drugs, and that minor’s mother did not know the identity of minor’s biological father. A psychological evaluation, which was included in the disposition report, explained that minor’s behavior warranted a diagnosis of Oppositional and Defiant Disorder, characterized minor’s home environment as unhealthy, and advised that minor would benefit from a highly structured environment where he could be closely monitored. The disposition report noted that minor had two uncles, but minor’s mother indicated that neither uncle was a suitable option for placement. Specifically, minor’s mother said that an uncle who lived in Orange County