In re M.W.

Filed 8/9/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re M.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160776 v. (Contra Costa County M.W., Juvenile Ct. No. J19-00870) Defendant and Appellant.

M.W., a ward of the juvenile court, appeals the court’s denial of his motion to require the probation department to pay for a domestic violence treatment program that he must complete as a condition of probation. He contends that under the Welfare and Institutions Code, neither he nor his mother is liable for the costs of his treatment program. We agree and therefore reverse. BACKGROUND When he was 17 years old, M.W. assaulted his girlfriend. The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition 1 alleging multiple felony counts against M.W. and seeking to have him declared a ward of the juvenile court. M.W. subsequently admitted a single count of willful infliction of corporal injury (Pen. Code, § 273.5,

All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code. 1

subd. (a)). The juvenile court adjudged M.W. a ward of the court under section 602 and ordered him to reside in his mother’s home under the probation department’s supervision. As one of the conditions of probation, the court ordered M.W. to complete a 52-week “Batterer’s Intervention Program.” The probation officer had recommended the Batterer’s Intervention Program as a probation condition because M.W. had a “pattern of engaging in violent behavior, as well as inappropriateness with females.” The probation officer concluded that M.W. “must address his tendency to . . . respond[] to his emotions in a dangerous way, and reduce the risk of escalation and future violence through treatment,” including by completing the Batterer’s Intervention Program. M.W. filed a motion requesting that the court order the probation department to pay for the program. At the hearing on his motion, M.W.’s counsel explained that M.W. had already enrolled in the program at a cost of $153 per month, or approximately $1,800 for the 52-week program. The probation department representative stated that “[w]e simply defer to the Court regarding whether or not the minor should be required to pay for the course or whether Probation would be directed to do so.” The court denied M.W.’s request, styling its order as an “Order Denying Motion to Relieve Minor of Financial Responsibility for Counseling.” The order “rejects [M.W.]’s argument that as a matter of law . . . he and his parents cannot be required to pay any part of his domestic violence treatment. If there is an issue with ability to pay, however, he may ask the Court for a hearing to address that issue.”