NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

IN RE JELOHREA J.

No. 1 CA-JV 17-0562

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV601224

The Honorable Shellie F. Smith, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Mesa

By Colleen Engineer

Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Adena J. Astrowsky

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

FILED 5-3-2018
IN RE JELORHEA J.

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Jelorhea J. (Juvenile) appeals the juvenile court’s disposition 

order placing him in a locked residential treatment center (RTC). For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In February 2017, Juvenile was charged with possession of 

marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the time, Juvenile was

living with his aunt, who had found the marijuana and paraphernalia in his 

room and reported it to the police. In April 2017, Juvenile participated in a 

psychological evaluation with Dr. Hirdes, who noted concerns that Juvenile 

was acting out and would continue to do so without adequate treatment.

In a written report, Dr. Hirdes recommended that Juvenile be placed in 

RTC.

¶3 In November 2017, Juvenile pleaded delinquent to possession 

of marijuana. Before holding disposition, the juvenile court granted 

Juvenile’s request for an updated evaluation. Dr. Hirdes conducted a 

second evaluation and again recommend placement in RTC. At 

disposition, the juvenile probation officer (JPO) agreed with Dr. Hirdes’s

recommendation, noting that before adjudication, Juvenile had been 

unsuccessful in an intensive outpatient program because he failed three 

drug tests and did not attend treatment. Juvenile argued a less restrictive 

in-home service was available through the Department of Child Safety.

¶4 At disposition, the trial court placed Juvenile on twelve 

months’ supervised probation and ordered he be placed in RTC. Juvenile 

timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 8-235(A),

1 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1). See Rita J. v. 

Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 512, 513, ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (“[T]he final order 

in a delinquency action is the disposition order.”) (citing Maricopa Cty. Juv. 

Action No. J-78151-S, 119 Ariz. 320, 321 (App. 1978)).

¶5 In February 2018, the juvenile court reviewed Juvenile’s status 

in RTC and, after considering new reports from RTC and the JPO, explicitly

 

1 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version. 
IN RE JELORHEA J.

Decision of the Court

3

found that continued placement in RTC was necessary and the least 

restrictive alternative.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Juvenile argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by 

ordering him to RTC because a less restrictive alternative existed. We will 

not disturb the court’s disposition absent an abuse of discretion. In re 

Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, 331, ¶ 4 (App. 2003) (citing In re Kristen C., 193 Ariz. 

562, 563, ¶ 7 (App. 1999)). The juvenile court has broad discretion to 

determine an appropriate disposition of a delinquent juvenile. Id. at ¶ 3

(quoting Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-510312, 183 Ariz. 116, 118 (App. 

1995)). The court is authorized to order residential treatment, but

placement in RTC must “be supported by a written psychological, 

psychiatric or medical evaluation recommending residential treatment 

services.” A.R.S. § 8-341.01(A). Additionally, the court must find by clear 

and convincing evidence that: “[t]he child requires residential treatment 

services to address the child’s behavioral, psychological, social or mental 

health needs,” and “[a]vailable alternatives to residential treatment services

were considered, but that residential treatment services are the least 

restrictive alternative.” A.R.S. § 8-341.01(B).

¶7 The record here reflects the juvenile court received and 

considered a written psychological evaluation which recommended

Juvenile be placed in RTC. The evaluation noted Juvenile had 

demonstrated runaway behavior, school truancy, and “increasingly 

oppositional behavior within the home of his . . . aunt.” Additionally, at 

disposition, the JPO agreed with the psychologist’s recommendation, 

noting Juvenile had not been successful in a less restrictive outpatient 

program, having repeatedly failed to attend treatment and tested positive 

for drug use. Accordingly, the court acted within its discretion in ordering

Juvenile to RTC.

¶8 Juvenile also argues the juvenile court erred at disposition by 

not making specific, written findings that he required residential treatment 

and it was the least restrictive alternative. Although the court did not 

expressly state those findings in its order, we presume the court considered 

those factors and made those findings before ordering residential 

treatment. See In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, 392, ¶ 21 (App. 2002) (“We 

assume that judges follow and apply the law” and therefore presume the 

trial court “made every finding necessary to support the judgment.”) 

(quoting Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-3594, 133 Ariz. 582, 585 (App. 

1982)) (citations omitted). Moreover, the record demonstrates the court had 
IN RE JELORHEA J.

Decision of the Court

4

sufficient facts before it to find by clear and convincing evidence that 

Juvenile needed residential treatment to address his behavioral, 

psychological, social or mental health needs; that available alternatives 

were considered; and that residential treatment was the least restrictive 

alternative. See supra ¶ 3. Finally, the court’s minute entry from the 

February 2018 status hearing includes the specific findings that A.R.S. § 8-

341.01(B) requires, rendering our consideration of the issue moot. 

Accordingly, we find no error.

CONCLUSION

¶9 The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.