In re A.C.

Filed 7/9/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re A.C., a Person Coming 2d Crim. No. B292149 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. PJ52736) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.C., a ward of the juvenile court, made statements to an in-home counselor who interpreted them as threats. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition and found that A.C. violated his conditions of probation by making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a).)1 A.C. appeals.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

We conclude that statements A.C. made to a counselor are admissible because they do not fall within the psychotherapist- patient privilege. (Evid. Code, § 1014.) We also conclude A.C.’s statements do not violate his conditions of probation. We reverse. FACTS After sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, the juvenile court placed A.C. home on probation. Probation condition 6 provided, “You must not unlawfully threaten, hit, fight with, or use physical force on any person.” Probation condition 14 provided, “You must not have, possess or act like you possess an object you know is a dangerous or deadly weapon. You must not knowingly have or possess a replica gun.” A few months later, the People filed a notice of violation of probation, alleging, among other things, that A.C.: 1) “threatened his peers at school,” 2) may be in danger of hurting himself, 3) is not on medication, and 4) has not seen a psychiatrist. The People requested A.C. be detained pending a hearing on the violation of his probation conditions. At the hearing, Ana Burgos, a “child and family counselor” with “Family Preservation,” testified she was the “in-home counselor assigned to [A.C.’s] family.” She did not provide “one- on-one therapy sessions.” She only assessed the needs of the family and “provid[ed] linkages” so the family and A.C. could receive mental health services. A.C.’s counsel objected, claiming Burgos’s testimony was inadmissible because it would reveal A.C.’s statements that are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The juvenile court ruled the objection was premature. It said, “[Y]ou’re required to assert the privilege every time you feel the privilege