In re A.G. CA2/6

Filed 2/8/24 In re A.G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re A.G., a Person Coming 2d Crim No. B326762 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 22JV-00206) (San Luis Obispo County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIA B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Maria B., legal guardian of minor A.G, appeals an order of the juvenile court granting the San Luis Obispo County Probation Department the authority to make medical decisions on A.G.’s behalf. In August 2022, the prosecutor filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that A.G. committed battery and vandalism, among other offenses. The juvenile court later released A.G. to return to Maria B.’s care on

home supervision. Four days later, A.G. was arrested after stealing Maria B.’s vehicle and crashing it. At the October 27, 2022, disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared A.G. a ward of the court and committed A.G. to Coastal Valley Academy for one year. A.G.’s counsel agreed and later filed a petition requesting an order granting the probation department the authority to arrange gender affirming medical care for A.G. The court scheduled a hearing regarding the petition and received three psychological evaluations or opinions concerning A.G.’s transgender status. The court considered the evaluations and Maria B.’s objections, and then granted the petition to permit the probation department medical decision making authority. We appointed counsel to represent Maria B. in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On September 29, 2023, we advised Maria B. that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Maria B.’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)