In re G.J. CA1/1

Filed 4/19/22 In re G.J. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re G.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A162297

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Solano County v. Super. Ct. No. J044297) G.J., Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant was declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602. He contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering his placement in a locked juvenile facility, Challenge Academy, rather than a less restrictive placement. We conclude the juvenile court acted within its discretion and affirm the placement order. I. BACKGROUND In 2018, appellant was declared a ward of the court following his admission to an assault. Between 2018 and 2019, appellant faced various charges for battery, assault, vandalism, and felony residential burglary. As a

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

result of an admission to a battery charge, the juvenile court placed appellant on probation in his mother’s home. Shortly thereafter, another juvenile wardship petition was filed by the Solano County District Attorney, charging appellant with felony assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. That count was subsequently dismissed, and appellant admitted a newly added count of violation of a court order of probation. The court found appellant had failed to reform while on probation in the custody of his mother and ordered placement in a foster home or institution. The probation department noted it was looking for appropriate treatment programs with suitable therapeutic curriculums. In mid-April 2020, it placed appellant at the Children’s Home of Stockton, a short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP). Approximately two weeks later, appellant failed his placement due to “a pattern of AWOLing[2] in and out of the facility, use of substances, bringing contraband on campus and overall non-compliance with program rules.” Appellant was detained at the Solano County Juvenile Detention Facility (JDF) while awaiting another placement. During that time, appellant was provided with extra mental health supports, including individual counseling. In June 2020, the probation department was able to secure a placement for appellant at Creative Alternatives. Two days after his placement, appellant absconded from Creative Alternatives with another youth, and staff was unable to locate appellant. A bench warrant was issued for appellant’s arrest. He was subsequently arrested and blamed his conduct on the program’s lack of structure and the staff. He stated he did not want to be