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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A162297

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. J044297)

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.
2

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 

2 Absent without leave (AWOL).
3

placed in a group home because “ ‘[i]t’s not good energy,’ ” “ ‘[i]t’s making it 

worse,’ ” and he would “ ‘rather be in jail.’ ” 

Despite appellant’s opposition, the probation department recommended 

appellant be placed at another STRTP. The probation department 

recommended that “another attempt at STRTP level placement is warranted 

prior to graduating to” the Challenge Academy, and noted “the knowledge of 

a possible looming future Challenge Academy commitment may also lend 

itself as a deterrent [to AWOL behavior].” Appellant was placed at Courage 

to Change, and the court authorized use of an electronic monitoring device to 

discourage AWOL behavior. 

Less than a month later, appellant again absconded from his 

placement. He also disabled the electronic monitoring device. A bench 

warrant was again issued for appellant’s arrest. Appellant was taken into 

custody approximately two months later and detained at the JDF. 

The subsequent probation report noted appellant had been 

participating in individual counseling and substance abuse counseling at 

Courage to Change, but he currently “is not availing himself for [sic] 

counseling and therapy.” The report further noted appellant “has developed 

a significant pattern of leaving his placement programs without permission.” 

A joint assessment report also was submitted to the court by the Solano 

County Department of Health and Social Services, Child Welfare Services 

Division, and the Solano County Probation Department, Juvenile Services 

Division. The report recounted appellant’s history of violence, his failure to 

avail himself of services, and his “not yet resolved” delinquency issues. Apart 

from Courage to Change and Creative Alternatives, the report noted 

appellant had failed two group homes and two STRTPs. The report also 

explained, “In order to achieve the ultimate goal of reunification, it is 
4

believed that an escalation in probation services is warranted at this time in 

order to provide [appellant] the opportunity to stabilize and address his 

treatment need areas in a more secure treatment setting.” The report 

recommended a commitment to Challenge Academy, as “the best opportunity 

[for appellant] to stabilize, make a positive behavioral adjustment, address 

his treatment need areas and work towards reunification with the mother.” 

Following a contested hearing, the court ordered appellant placed at 

Challenge Academy. Appellant timely appealed. 

II.

DISCUSSION

“We review the [juvenile] court’s placement decision for an abuse of 

discretion. [Citation.] We review the court’s findings for substantial 

evidence, and ‘ “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings 

critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.” ’ ” (In re Nicole H. 

(2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.) In reviewing the court’s decision, we are 

mindful of the twofold purposes of the juvenile delinquency laws: “(1) to serve

the ‘best interests’ of the delinquent ward by providing care, treatment, and 

guidance to rehabilitate the ward and ‘enable him or her to be a law-abiding 

and productive member of his or her family and the community,’ and (2) to 

‘provide for the protection and safety of the public.’ ” (In re Charles G. (2004) 

115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614–615.)

Appellant argues the juvenile court erred in placing him at Challenge 

Academy because the record does not demonstrate less restrictive 

alternatives are ineffective or inappropriate or that Challenge Academy 

would benefit him. 
5

A. Less Restrictive Alternative

Appellant argues the evidence does not demonstrate returning him to 

an STRTP with electronic monitoring and extensive services “ ‘would be 

ineffective or inappropriate.’ ” We disagree.

Appellant has been placed in numerous group homes and STRTPs

during his time in both the dependency and delinquency systems. However, 

the longest time he has stayed in any one place was while at the JDF. Most 

recently, appellant was placed in three different STRTPs. He remained at 

Children’s Home of Stockton for approximately two weeks before failing the 

placement due to a range of negative behavior including “a pattern of 

AWOLing in and out of the facility.” He remained at Creative Alternatives 

for two days before absconding from the placement, and a bench warrant was

issued for his arrest. Appellant was then placed at Courage to Change with

an electronic monitoring device. The probation department hoped the 

electronic monitoring along with the more remote location of the program

would deter appellant’s AWOL behavior. However, he remained at Courage 

to Change for less than a month before absconding and disabling the 

electronic monitoring device. And the court again issued a bench warrant for 

his arrest. 

While appellant argues there is no evidence he would abscond from a 

future placement, the probation department noted appellant “appeared to 

lack insight or remorse” about his AWOL behavior, and he continued to 

blame others for his conduct. Appellant’s mother also expressed doubt that 

appellant would behave in a responsible or accountable manner, and was 

concerned about his safety and drug use while AWOL from his placements.3

3 Appellant argues the probation department made no effort to find an

STRTP to accept him. But the probation department acknowledged it 

probably could find an STRTP to accept appellant. Rather, the probation 
6

Finally, appellant argues placement at Challenge Academy is 

inappropriate given the nature of his probation violations. Appellant argues 

the majority of minors at Challenge Academy have recently committed 

serious offenses, whereas appellant has not. He contends a more restrictive 

STRTP would be more appropriate. But the juvenile court previously 

attempted a more restrictive STRTP—namely, Courage to Change with 

electronic monitoring—without success. The mere fact that Challenge 

Academy is often utilized by more serious offenders does not make the 

placement inappropriate for appellant.4

B. Benefit to Appellant

Appellant also argues the record does not support a finding that 

placement at Challenge Academy was in his best interest because the 

probation department failed to identify the relevant programs available at 

Challenge Academy to address his emotional and educational needs. Again, 

we disagree.

Section 202, subdivision (b) requires that delinquent minors “receive 

care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that 

holds them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their 

circumstances.” Similarly, California Rules of Court, rule 5.790(h)(3)

provides: “The decision regarding choice of placement [of a minor removed 

from his or her parent’s care] must take into account . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [t]hat 

officer testified the STRTP advocated by appellant’s expert, Summit View, 

had already denied placement, it was unlikely to alter that decision, and the 

probation department believed a secure and more structured facility was the 

best option for appellant. 

4 Moreover, we note appellant has a history of assault, battery, and 

felony burglary charges. 
7

the setting is the environment best suited to meet the child’s special needs 

and best interest.”

Undoubtedly, appellant has past trauma and mental health issues that 

require treatment. However, efforts to provide relevant treatment have been 

unsuccessful because of appellant’s AWOL behavior. The record indicates 

appellant “has a history of receiving multiple opportunities for intensive 

community-based treatment and specialty mental health services . . . . He has 

also received multiple opportunities for in-patient therapeutic services during 

episodes of out of home placement . . . .” However, those placements resulted 

in appellant absconding after very short periods of time “with little to no 

engagement in services.” 

Moreover, a supplemental probation department report notes 

Challenge Academy “offers a level of behavioral health support services” 

albeit not as intensive as those offered by STRTPs. At the disposition 

hearing, the probation officer testified Challenge Academy would provide 

appellant with access to mental health counseling, including the option of 

supplemental mental health sessions by a community provider, and family 

therapy. He also testified Challenge Academy provides a cognitive behavior 

program involving reasoning and rehabilitation, aggression replacement 

therapy, vocational training assistance, and educational services. He 

described it as “above and beyond” the normal JDF offerings. 

Appellant relies on In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1 (Carlos J.) 

and In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Angela M.) to assert this 

description of services is inappropriate. In Carlos J., the juvenile court 

initially placed the minor with the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) based 

almost exclusively on the seriousness of the offense. (Id. at p. 9.) Our 

colleagues in Division Five reversed the placement order. (Id. at p. 15.) They
8

noted the juvenile court identified various needs of the minor, such as 

treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and minimizing his gang 

affiliation. However, the record did not demonstrate that such needs could be 

met via placement at the DJF. (Id. at pp. 10–11.) The court concluded, 

“Considering the significance of a decision to send a minor to the DJF . . . , it 

is reasonable and appropriate to expect the probation department, in its 

report or testimony, to identify those programs at the DJF likely to be of 

benefit to the minor under consideration.” (Id. at p. 12.)

Here, appellant’s placement at Challenge Academy was not a 

punishment for the seriousness of his crime but rather designed to address 

one of his primary needs—a secure environment to counter appellant’s 

ongoing AWOL behavior. Unlike the minor in Carlos J., whose initial

placement was with the DJF, the juvenile court did not place appellant 

immediately at Challenge Academy. Rather, the court attempted home 

placement, group homes, various STRTPs, and an STRTP with an electronic 

monitoring device. Only when all of those placements were unsuccessful did

the court place appellant at Challenge Academy.5 Moreover, unlike Carlos J.,

where the record lacked any evidence of relevant programs, the probation 

officer’s testimony at the disposition hearing provided an overview of 

programs and therapy available at Challenge Academy, including the ability 

to bring in supplemental mental health services for appellant.

5 This series of placements follows the general statutory scheme, as 

noted by the court in Carlos J., which “ ‘ “contemplates a progressively more 

restrictive and punitive series of dispositions starting with home placement 

under supervision, and progressing to foster home placement, placement in a 

local treatment facility, and finally placement at the [DJF].” ’ ” (Carlos J., 

supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 6.) 
9

Angela M. also does not help appellant’s position as it affirmed the 

minor’s commitment to the California Youth Authority (CYA). In that 

matter, the minor was committed to the CYA after the court concluded an 

alternative facility was inappropriate because the minor was “not motivated 

for treatment, was too aggressive and impulse driven,” “needed a structured 

behavior modification approach prior to group therapy,” and was “ ‘too 

defiant, gang entrenched, and uncooperative.’ ” (Angela M., supra, 111 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) The appellate court explained “the court reasonably 

concluded [the alternative facility] could not accommodate [the minor’s]

needs,” and the commitment to the CYA was not an abuse of discretion.6 (Id. 

at p. 1397.)

In light of appellant’s consistent pattern of absconding from his 

placements, it was logical for the juvenile court to identify a secure facility as 

the highest priority to meet appellant’s needs. While the forms of therapy 

available at Challenge Academy may not be perfect, appellant has not 

demonstrated that they would not be beneficial. The record indicates he 

stabilized during his periods of confinement at the JDF, and he earned

almost all of his high school credits while in custody at the JDF. The services 

available at other facilities are meaningless if appellant absconds and is not 

present to engage in them. Accordingly, we cannot conclude the juvenile

court abused its discretion in placing appellant at Challenge Academy.

III.

DISPOSITION

The disposition order is affirmed.

6 While the juvenile court remanded for additional findings on the 

minor’s educational needs, it was solely to include that information with the 

commitment order to the CYA. (Angela M., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1399.)
10

MARGULIES, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

EAST, J.

A162297

In re G.J.

 Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.