Court Opinion

ID: 9726592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:58:55.088037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:28.957508
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, J.
I concur.
For jurisdiction, the juvenile justice scheme relies on status rather than crime, and for remedy, on declaration of wardship and treatment rather than conviction and punishment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 725.) Its ultimate purpose is treatment of the ward to promote his welfare. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 502, 731.)
At bench, following what amounted to a trial de novo the court was required to order a type of treatment suitable for the ward. In determining suitability, the court in January 1976 had available more factual input and more psychological evaluation than had been available seven months earlier and, additionally, had the record of petitioner’s conduct during the intervening seven-month period. As I read the juvenile court law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 500 et seq.) courts must select an appropriate type of treatment for the ward on the basis of the best information available at the date of the court’s order, not on the basis of information seven months out-of-date. Any selection of treatment seven months earlier on the basis of less complete information, is largely immaterial to selection of appropriate treatment for the ward in January 1976.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 28, 1976, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied Januaiy 27, 1977.