People v. A.N. (In Re A.N.)
Before: Tangeman
Filed 5/2/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re A.N., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B275914 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 2015040294) (Ventura County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.N.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A.N. refused to go to school. She demonstrated her unwavering commitment to avoiding an education when she earned more than 25 unexcused absences during the first half of the academic year. As required, school officials made a “conscientious effort” to meet with A.N. and her parents to address her absenteeism. (Ed. Code, § 48262.)1 They then referred her case to the School Attendance Review Board (SARB).
1 All further statutory references are to the Education Code unless otherwise stated.
(§ 48263.) But A.N.’s behavior never changed. School officials thus turned to the juvenile court in their continuing effort to compel A.N.’s attendance. She objects, contending that the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction because school officials failed to sequence their disciplinary and counseling resources in conformity with law. We disagree. School officials did everything they could and should do to educate—not abandon—A.N., and they did so in conformity with the law. The juvenile court properly determined that “available public and private services [were] insufficient or inappropriate to correct [A.N.’s] habitual truancy . . . or to correct [her] persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601, subd. (b).) We affirm. BACKGROUND A.N.’s high school principal sent her parents a notice of truancy after she accumulated four unexcused absences during the first month of the school year. One week later, the principal sent a second notice that documents five more unexcused absences. Her principal later sent a third truancy notice. This notice states that A.N. accrued 10 more absences and would be classified as a habitual truant. It also states that a referral may be made to the SARB. The SARB meeting was held the following month. A.N. accumulated six more unexcused absences before the SARB meeting, and another after it. Two weeks before the SARB meeting, the district attorney filed a petition in juvenile court to have A.N. declared a habitual truant under section 48262. The court held a hearing on the petition four months later. The court sustained the petition, deemed A.N. a habitual truant, and ordered her to pay a $50 fine.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)