Filed 8/17/26 In re J.F. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.F., A173765 Defendant and Appellant.
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 24JW0025)
J.F. admitted allegations that he committed assault with a firearm and personally used a firearm in the commission of a felony. The juvenile court committed J.F. to a secure youth treatment facility (“SYTF” or “secure track”; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 8751) for a maximum term of seven years, with a baseline term of four years. On appeal, J.F. contends the court abused its discretion in committing him to secure track because the court failed to analyze any less restrictive alternative placements and explain why they would be ineffective. J.F. further argues that the court failed to make specific
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
findings about how the programs in secure track would benefit him, and that the record lacks substantial evidence of such probable benefits. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Underlying Offenses 1. May 2023
On May 12, 2023, J.F. (then age 15) took his stepfather’s vehicle without permission, and the vehicle was used in a homicide in San Francisco at around 4:00 p.m.
That evening, J.F. and his stepfather went to the Pacifica Police Department and falsely reported the vehicle was stolen.2 J.F. told law enforcement he had left school early that day around 12:00 p.m. and drove to Pacifica. When he stopped to check the tires, a man in black clothes and a black ski mask allegedly approached, demanded the keys, and drove away in the stepfather’s vehicle. J.F. acknowledged he did not ask anyone for help or attempt to call the police, and he claimed he walked home to Daly City, a distance of approximately 13 miles. The police report indicated J.F.’s stepfather had raised concerns about his stepson and believed “somebody was pressuring [J.F.] to do something via telephone.” The stepfather asked the police to search J.F.’s cell phone.
The vehicle was eventually recovered in Oakland, and the San Francisco Police Department later obtained a photograph of J.F. driving the vehicle over the Bay Bridge after the time he said it had been stolen and approximately one hour after the homicide.
2. December 2023
In December 2023, J.F. (then age 16) was riding as a passenger in a white 2011 Infiniti driven by his friend, A.M. A.M.’s brother, A.P., was in the
2 It is unclear whether J.F.’s stepfather knew the report was false.
3
front seat, and J.F. sat in the rear of the vehicle. Shortly before 4:30 p.m., the Infiniti drove down a residential street in San Francisco. Daniel Sahagun was in his front yard throwing a ball to his father’s dogs when the Infiniti hit one of the dogs and did not stop. Sahagun and his cousin got into a red SUV and began pursuing the Infiniti.
The chase ensued for several minutes over a distance of 1.5 miles, during which the Infiniti drove at high speeds and on the wrong side of the road. The Infiniti eventually collided with a bus and came to a stop at an intersection in Daly City. Sahagun and his cousin exited the red SUV and approached the Infiniti. A.P. partially emerged from the passenger side window of the Infiniti and appeared “to confront the victims.” J.F. then pointed a gun out of the rear driver’s side window and fired three shots at Sahagun, hitting him twice in the chest and once in the thigh. The Infiniti immediately drove away.
Later that evening, San Francisco police were dispatched to the home of A.M.’s mother on a report of carjacking and kidnapping. A.M. told law enforcement that he and J.F. were waiting in the Infiniti outside A.M.’s mother’s home when an unknown Black male with a gun ordered A.M. out of the vehicle and then drove away with J.F. still in the front seat. A.M. told officers that while walking back to his father’s house, he threw away his cell phone, but he could not explain why he did so. The following day, police officers went to J.F.’s home. J.F. claimed he had been kidnapped in the Infiniti and held at gunpoint before the suspect robbed him of his cell phone, cash, and a bracelet, and dropped him off. J.F. claimed he then walked approximately seven hours back to his home.
San Francisco Police Department officers reviewed surveillance footage of the area where the alleged carjacking occurred and saw A.M., A.P., and
4
J.F. in the Infiniti driving away together about three minutes prior to striking Sahagun’s dog. There was no evidence of a carjacking. The Daly City Police Department obtained search warrants for the phones of J.F. and A.M. and the homes of J.F., A.M., and A.P.
Data from the cell phones confirmed that J.F. and A.M. were near the scene of the shooting at around the time it occurred, and that afterwards, A.M. remained in contact with others using the phone he claimed to have discarded. Meanwhile, J.F. abandoned the Infiniti in Menlo Park and remained at a location in East Palo Alto for several hours before he returned by vehicle, not on foot, to his residence in Daly City. Video footage of the chase and shooting showed that neither the driver nor the passenger of the red SUV had a gun or made any movements suggesting they were reaching for a weapon. No firearm was recovered from the red SUV. A search of A.M.’s residence revealed firearms similar to the type used in the shooting (but not the actual gun used), black ski masks, spent 9mm casings, live ammunition, and license plates belonging to the white Infiniti.
J.F. was arrested in January 2024. He was in possession of a rose gold cell phone, which he denied owning. His mother later told law enforcement that “when the initial kidnapping report was initiated, [J.F.] lied to the police that his phone was stolen.” J.F. wanted his mother’s phone because it was newer, so they switched phones. J.F. “wiped his original phone off so the records and memory and everything that was in that phone was deleted.” J.F. told his mother “he did not want his phone taken away by the police,” like it had been the year before when he was a suspect in a homicide
5
investigation San Francisco. J.F. specifically instructed his mother to report his old phone as stolen.3 B. Juvenile Court Proceedings 1. Wardship Petition and Plea In January 2024, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging J.F.’s commission of the following offenses: attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count one); assault with a firearm (id., § 245, subd. (a)(2); count two); carrying a concealed loaded weapon (id., § 25400, subd. (c)(6); count three); carrying a loaded firearm in public (id., § 25850, subd. (c)(6); count four); destruction of evidence (id., § 135; count five); and filing a false police report (id., § 148.5, subd. (a); count six). Enhancements for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury (id., § 12022.53, subd. (d)) and personal use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)) were alleged as to counts one and two, respectively.
In October 2024, J.F. admitted count two and the personal firearm enhancement allegation and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Although the remaining counts were dismissed, J.F. agreed the dismissed counts could be considered by the juvenile court for disposition.
2. Probation Report
In November 2024, the Probation Department submitted the following information in its report to the juvenile court. J.F. had no known sustained prior offenses and was not on probation. His parents separated when he was seven years old, and he considered his mother’s current partner to be his stepfather. J.F. was raised in the Hunter’s Point area with his mother,
3 It is unclear whether J.F.’s mother reported the phone stolen as J.F. had instructed.
6
stepfather, and younger brother. Although financial hardship required the parents to work often, J.F. had a stable home, and he denied any domestic abuse.4 His mother reported that J.F. behaved well at home, was a “ ‘very good kid,’ ” and had no substance abuse issues. J.F.’s high school transcripts reflected declining grades.
J.F.’s behavior in custody since his January 2024 arrest had “fluctuated.” He was “generally well behaved and respectful towards institutions [sic] staff members,” and his attendance and academic performance were improving. However, J.F. received two incident reports. In August 2024, he “attacked” another youth with “punches to the head” and “did not abide by staff directives to disengage.” In October 2024, J.F. was reported for “possession of gang-related content and drawings of firearms.” The writings described a homicide and violence with a firearm that “glorified the violence.” He was also in possession of sexually explicit notes from a female detainee, which violated facility rules.
J.F. engaged in weekly therapeutic sessions, and his clinician described him as “ ‘a kind, respectful, responsible, reflective youth who has matured developmentally since arriving in the juvenile hall.’ ” J.F. had no formal diagnoses related to mental health, but it was noted that he experienced symptoms of anxiety and was on an antidepressant. He denied a diagnosis for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but “explained that, at times, he experiences ‘flashbacks’ and thinks about a time in which he was shot at during his middle school years.”
Regarding the December 2023 shooting, J.F. claimed he and his companions stopped to check on the dog after hitting it, but “ ‘someone came
4 Four prior referrals for the family with Child and Family Services alleged general neglect of the children but were all closed.
7
out of nowhere and hit the window,’ ” causing them to drive off. Someone in the car then stated the victim possessed a firearm, and J.F. “ ‘tried to call the police but didn’t think it would do anything.’ ” J.F. said he was scared and panicked during the incident and “was reminded of a time in which he was previously shot at as a younger child; he believed he was going to be shot by the victim.” He acknowledged his wrongdoing and expressed his apologies to the victim.
The probation officer explained what she saw in video footage provided by defense counsel. The victim’s vehicle stopped “at an angle, in front of the suspect vehicle,” giving the Infiniti “sufficient space to continue driving away, rather than stopping to engage in the altercation.” The victim and his cousin approached the Infiniti without presenting weapons, but “[n]early instantly, shots are heard.” In the probation officer’s view, J.F. “demonstrated sophistication and planning” by fabricating the carjacking report to conceal his involvement in the offense. J.F. had previously falsely reported the carjacking of a vehicle related to a homicide.
Sahagun declined to submit a formal victim impact statement but reported to the probation officer that he had undergone seven major surgeries and had been hospitalized for one and half months, with ongoing physical therapy. He was unable to work for nine months and continued to experience physical pain and mental suffering.
Based on the seriousness of the offense and the entirety of the probation report, the probation officer recommended that J.F. be adjudged a ward of the court and, in addition to other orders, be committed to secure track’s “Success and Opportunities Aspiring Readiness for Reentry” (“SOARR”) program. The probation report explained that “[w]hile participating in the SOARR program, the Minor will receive mental health
8
services, educational support, social and life skills, vocational training, and other identified services to support the Minor while he is in the program. The SOARR program will also provide a therapeutic environment for the Minor to learn new skills, receive support, and prepare him for reentry back into the community. In addition, he will continue to be afforded the following services facilitated by community-based organizations: Fresh Lifelines for Youth (offers youth law-related education pertaining to relevant laws and their rights), The Beat Within (involves youth receiving five interrelated topics each week and choosing one of the topics to write a one-page essay), Art of Yoga (monthly modules that emphasize[] reflection, accountability, and wellbeing), Success Centers (promotes job readiness and teaches life skills to prepare youth for the transition to employment), Mind Body Awareness Program (entails 10 topic areas with an emphasis on stress and anxiety reduction, mindfulness, and emotional regulation), and drug and alcohol education. Additionally, the Minor will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the art program, faith-based services, and Large Muscle Activity.”
3. Disposition Hearing
The contested disposition hearing was held over several days between January and May 2025. We now summarize some of the relevant testimony.
Several family members gave testimony on the pain and suffering Sahagun had endured and the difficulties he continued to experience as a result of the shooting.
A.P. testified he was in the Infiniti during the shooting and was arrested but not charged with any crime. During the pursuit, A.P. believed he saw the passenger of the red SUV holding a rifle and told the others “they might have a gun.” A.P. claimed that prior to the shooting, the Infiniti was
9
“blocked off” by the red SUV and was unable to navigate away safely, and that Sahagun had one of his hands “in his back pants behind his waistline” as he approached the Infiniti, which A.P. perceived as threatening. A.P. confirmed that J.F. fired the shots at Sahagun but claimed he did not know J.F. had a gun.
Daly City Police Detective Randy Ortiz testified the surveillance footage of the incident showed that when the Infiniti and red SUV stopped at the intersection, the Infiniti was not prevented from making a right turn and driving away. The surveillance video also showed that Sahagun’s hands were empty as he exited the red SUV, that he never reached to his back, and that no firearm was ever found in the red SUV or around the crime scene area.
Dr. Kaylan Altis, a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialization in forensic and adolescent psychology, evaluated J.F. in May 2024. J.F. told Dr. Altis that his neighborhood was not “particularly safe,” and that he was shot at while in middle school. Dr. Altis opined that such exposure often results in hypervigiliance as a coping strategy. J.F. denied a history of substance abuse or mental illness but reported suffering from occasional anxiety.
Dr. Altis noted that J.F. was doing well in juvenile hall, and the reports were overall positive despite some behavioral issues. J.F. was a leader in the unit and showed empathy and strong maturity, and he seemed to be a good candidate for rehabilitation. Regarding two negative incident reports, Dr. Altis characterized J.F.’s misbehavior as “isolated” and acknowledged she did not question him about them. Dr. Altis noted J.F. was “currently at a lower level of care than the Secure Track, being in the [Youth Services Center or YSC] programming. He has shown an ability to grow and mature in that setting.”
10
Dr. Altis explained that scientific research has shown adolescent brains remain underdeveloped into their early to mid-twenties. The prefrontal cortex, which is related to self-control and executive function, tends to develop later, and as a result, adolescents tend to make more emotionally fueled, impulsive judgments.
To assess J.F.’s risk of reoffending, Dr. Altis used a structured professional judgment tool called Structured Assessment of Violence in Youth (“SAVRY”), which involves assessment of ten historical factors, six social factors, and eight individual or clinical factors. Dr. Altis concluded that despite the severity of the offense, J.F. did not fall into a high-risk category, and he had a low to moderate risk of reoffending.
Of the six social factors (peer delinquency, peer rejection, stress and poor coping, poor parental management, lack of personal or social support, and community disorganization), Dr. Altis rated peer delinquency as a low to moderate factor, and poor parental management as a moderate factor. Dr. Altis expressed “concerns . . . that the parents are working a lot” and that “their schedules leave some possible lapses in supervision.” She did not consider the fact that in the May 2023 Pacifica Police Department report, J.F.’s stepfather reported the parents’ concerns about J.F.’s associates and asked the police to search their son’s phone. Dr. Altis explained the police reports were not the focus of her evaluation, but she acknowledged it was “very problematic that there were these deficits in supervision and management.”
The juvenile court ordered J.F. committed to secure track. Though finding Dr. Altis to be credible, the court disagreed with some of her assessments, including her views that J.F. did not attempt to present himself in an overly favorable light and that J.F.’s peer group was not delinquent, as
11
well as her overall assessment that J.F. was at low risk to reoffend. The court also found J.F. was “disingenuous” with Dr. Altis about certain facts that were demonstrably false, e.g., denying he was failing all of his classes.
The juvenile court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, as it “could have easily been a fatality, and the minor could have very easily been charged with a homicide.” While acknowledging it was “ill advised” for the victim to pursue the suspect vehicle, the court observed J.F. was “armed with a gun, which was never recovered,” and the court did not believe his claim of self-defense. As the court explained, A.P.’s testimony was not credible and was contradicted by other evidence, as no firearm was recovered from the victim’s car, and video footage showed the victim did not reach to grab a gun. Likewise, A.P.’s testimony that the red SUV boxed the Infiniti in was shown to be false by the video footage. Furthermore, J.F.’s actions after the shooting were “not indicative of self-defense. He got rid of the car. He swapped phones with his mother. He wiped his phones. He reported that he was kidnapped and that the car in question was stolen. An elaborate plan to not take responsibility for his actions.” The court found these actions to be “very concerning” and reflecting a high degree of criminal sophistication, as J.F. “did everything to hide evidence, to lie about what happened. For a young man, who was 16 years at the time . . . he was pretty determined to lie his way through this as best he could. He was lawless. He was reckless. He didn’t care about right or wrong. It was all about just hiding evidence to protect himself and his friends.”
The juvenile court further emphasized the significant harm to the victim resulting from J.F.’s actions. Sahagun was “gravely injured and has experienced and will experience months of excruciating surgeries and pain and will likely never the be same. . . . I know that he has had at least seven
12
surgeries lasting 9 to 12 hours, based on the testimony of his family, and was hospitalized for a month and a half. . . . [H]e will likely not have a normal life. . . . He’s in pain and he has physical limitations.”
Regarding J.F.’s behavior in custody, the juvenile court explained it had “read carefully over all of the Behavioral Court Reports that were filed with the court” and found “his behavior has been average. . . . He has had some bumps in the road, but overall he is a helper and his behavior has been satisfactory.” However, the court noted J.F. had had several rule violations, which included the incident in which he attacked another youth with “punches to the head.” Other violations included writings and drawings that showed a preoccupation with guns, which the court found to be “a grave concern.”
The juvenile court acknowledged J.F. had no prior delinquency history.
However, the court took into consideration J.F.’s involvement in the May 2023 incident in which he took his stepfather’s car, and the vehicle was used in a homicide. There, as in the December 2023 incident, J.F. falsely reported the car was stolen.
The juvenile court further remarked that it had considered “[w]hether the programming, treatment and education offered and provided in the [SYTF] is appropriate to meet the treatment and secure needs of a youth, whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safely can be met by assigning the youth to an alternative, less restricted disposition available to the court.” The court found “that a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable.” As the court explained, “an award of custody to the parents would be detrimental to the youth and that an award to a non-parent is required to serve the minor’s best interest. The parents are incapable of providing or having failed or neglected to provide proper maintenance,
13
training or education to the youth and the welfare of the youth requires that the youth be taken from the custody of his parents. A return of the youth to his home would be contrary to his welfare.”
The juvenile court committed J.F. to secure track with a maximum term of seven years, a baseline of four years, and 504 days of credit. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review A minor may be removed from parental custody when necessary for the minor’s welfare or for the safety and protection of the public. (§ 202, subd. (a).) Until recently, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)5 was “the state’s most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders.” (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 902 (Miguel C.).) In 2020, Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337) closed the DJJ and transferred its responsibilities to counties (§ 736.5, subds. (a), (e)).
Section 875 “governs the commitment of juvenile wards to the [SYTFs]
that have replaced the [DJJ] as the most restrictive placement alternative.” (In re Tony R. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 395, 406.) The statute authorizes secure track placement only if, among other findings, “[t]he court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).) In making this determination, the court must consider “all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agency
5 “The DJJ is also known as the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). [Citation.] DJJ and DJF are used interchangeably in case law.” (In re J.B. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 410, 413, fn. 1.)
14
or individual designated by the court to advise on the appropriate disposition of the case.” (Ibid.)
“The court shall additionally make its determination based on all of the following criteria: [¶] (A) The severity of the offense or offenses for which the ward has been most recently adjudicated, including the ward’s role in the offense, the ward's behavior, and harm done to victims. [¶] (B) The ward’s previous delinquent history, including the adequacy and success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the ward. [¶] (C) Whether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward. [¶] (D) Whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safety can be met by assigning the ward to an alternative, less restrictive disposition that is available to the court. [¶] (E) The ward’s age, developmental maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and any disabilities or special needs affecting the safety or suitability of committing the ward to a term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(A)–(E).)
We review a juvenile court’s placement decision for abuse of discretion.
(Miguel C., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 908.) The juvenile court abuses its discretion when factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence. (In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 5 (Carlos J.).) We will not disturb a juvenile court’s factual findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.)
B. Less Restrictive, Alternative Disposition As indicated, the juvenile court committed J.F. to secure track with a maximum term of seven years. Consistent with the mandate of section 875, subdivision (a)(3), the court made an express finding on the record that a less
15
restrictive, alternative disposition for J.F. was unsuitable. J.F. maintains this finding was inadequate because the record lacked specific information about less restrictive alternatives the court considered in reaching its decision. We disagree. Dr. Altis testified that J.F.’s then-current YSC programming was a lower level of care than secure track. The court also expressly considered the option of returning J.F. to the custody of his parents. On this record, we may reasonably infer the court weighed these specific alternatives before making its decision to commit J.F. to secure track.
J.F. next maintains the juvenile court erred by not “providing any substantive analysis of alternative placements.” But section 875 does not require a court to state its reasoning, only to make a finding on the record that less restrictive alternatives were unsuitable and, in doing so, to consider the enumerated criteria in section 875, subdivision (a)(3)(A) through (E). The juvenile court did so here.
In particular, the juvenile court emphasized the severity of the offense, the harm to the victim, and the sophistication of J.F.’s conduct, while also considering the programs described in the probation report, and the behavioral reports of J.F.’s conduct since his arrest. J.F. does not dispute that the offenses, including the dismissed offenses which the court was permitted to consider under the plea deal, were severe; that his conduct both during and after the shooting were highly concerning; and that the victim suffered significant harm as a result of the shooting. (See § 875, subd.(a)(3)(A).) The court could, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, conclude these factors weighed heavily in favor of committing J.F. to secure track for the protection of the public. (§ 202, subd. (a).)
Additionally, the record amply supports the juvenile court’s determination that maintaining J.F. in the less restrictive YSC program he
16
was in at the time of the disposition hearing would be inadequate for his rehabilitation and for public safety. There was substantial evidence showing that J.F.’s performance in custody was “average” and that he experienced multiple “bumps in the road,” including incidents involving violence against another youth and a fixation with firearms. Such evidence reasonably supported the court’s “grave concern” over the firearm drawings given J.F.’s firearm use in the instant case. Despite J.F.’s attempt to cast the record of his conduct in juvenile hall in a light most favorable to him, substantial evidence supports the court’s conclusion that J.F.’s conduct was more mixed, and that more would be required for his rehabilitation.
As for the less restrictive option of returning J.F. to his parents’
custody, the record provides a sufficient basis for the juvenile court’s concern that J.F.’s parents were susceptible to his manipulation and incapable of adequately supervising him. Back in May 2023, J.F.’s stepfather had asked the Pacifica Police Department to search J.F.’s phone out of concerns about J.F.’s associates, and J.F. used the stepfather to help him file a false police report in May 2023. Later, J.F. convinced his mother to swap phones with him after the December 2023 shooting, and based on her statements to police, the mother knew J.F. made this request because he had falsely reported to police that his own phone had been stolen. On this record, the court reasonably concluded that returning J.F. to his parents’ custody would be inadequate for his rehabilitation and for public safety.
J.F. repeatedly emphasizes that this was his first offense and that he had no record of prior dependency. But he cites no authority holding that a prior dependency record is necessary for commitment to the most restrictive placement. Nor is a juvenile court required to attempt a less restrictive placement before committing a youth to the most restrictive one. (See, e.g.,
17
In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1159.) Notably, the totality of J.F.’s relevant conduct included not only the December 2023 shooting, but the subsequent false report of a carjacking, J.F.’s destruction of evidence, as well as his link to a homicide in May 2023 and the related filing of a false police report. Thus, while J.F. had no prior formal dependency case, the record discloses a pattern of highly concerning unlawful conduct that supports the juvenile court’s decision to commit J.F. to secure track.
In sum, the juvenile court did not err in finding that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for J.F. would be unsuitable.
C. Probable Benefit of Secure Track Programming J.F. argues the secure track commitment was an abuse of discretion because the juvenile court failed to make specific findings that any programs in secure track would benefit him, and the evidence fell short of demonstrating the probable benefit of any secure track programs. We find no abuse of discretion.
The probable benefit requirement is codified in section 734, which states, “No ward of the juvenile court shall be committed to the [DJJ] unless the judge of the court is fully satisfied that the mental and physical condition and qualifications of the ward are such as to render it probable that he will be benefited by the reformatory educational discipline or other treatment provided by the [DJJ].” As one court explains, “[e]vidence of probable benefit is required not only by section 734, but also by the language of section 202, subdivision (b) mandating 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.’ [Citation.] A similar mandate appears in rule 5.790(h) of the California Rules of Court. That rule provides that, where a minor’s welfare
18
requires that he be removed from his parent’s custody [citation] (as the juvenile court found in the present case), ‘[t]he decision regarding choice of placement must take into account . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [t]hat the setting is the environment best suited to meet the child’s special needs and best interest.’ ” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 6.)
In Carlos J., Division Five of this appellate district provided guidance regarding the initial showing required of the People to support a DJJ/DJF commitment: “Considering the significance of a decision to send a minor to the DJF and the statutory mandates of sections 202 and 734, 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. Where a minor has particular needs, the probation department should also include brief descriptions of the relevant programs to address those needs. It will likely be acceptable for the probation department to include substantially similar information about the DJF in most of its reports, with appropriate updates and customization based on the needs of the minor involved. [¶] The People bear the burden of showing the appropriateness of a proposed placement, and the basic information outlined above is properly considered part of the initial burden of production on the issue and the minimum required substantial evidence of probable benefit.” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 12, italics omitted.)
Carlos J. clarified, however, that “the probation department is not required in its report and initial testimony to provide indepth information about the DJF’s programs or to preemptively respond to even predictable criticisms of the DJF. Under Evidence Code, section 664, where the probation officer has identified programs of benefit to a minor and provided brief information about the most important programs, it may be presumed
19
the probation officer’s recommendation is based on an assessment the programs are available and appropriate. If a minor wishes to dispute the availability or efficacy of particular programs, or to suggest that other conditions at the DJF undermine the programs, the minor must present sufficient evidence to reasonably bring into question the benefit he or she will receive from the adoption of the probation department's recommendation.” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 13, italics added.)
In the instant case, the probation department reported to the juvenile court that the programming in secure track would include “mental health services, educational support, social and life skills, vocational training, and other identified services,” along with “a therapeutic environment for the Minor to learn new skills, receive support, and prepare him for reentry back into the community.” The report further indicated that J.F. would continue to receive the “community-based” programs he was already receiving (e.g., Fresh Lifelines for Youth, The Beat Within, Art of Yoga, Success Centers, Mind Body Awareness Program, Large Muscle Activity), with brief descriptions of each.
J.F. insists the probation report lacked sufficient specificity to support a probable benefit determination, but we conclude otherwise. Granted, the probation department offered only a brief summary of available programming, coupled with information about programs J.F. was already receiving.6 But it remains the case that in-depth information was not
6 The People also point us to the individual rehabilitation plan filed with the juvenile court on June 18, 2025. The People contend this plan constitutes substantial evidence of the probable benefit of secure track programming, as it contains specific details about the vocational, life skills, and clinical services J.F. would receive in SOARR. But as J.F. validly points out, the plan was developed in the weeks after the May 2025 disposition hearing. (See § 875, subd. (d)(1) [individual rehabilitation plan must be submitted to
20
required on the People’s initial showing (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 13) and that the probation report provided a sufficient factual basis for the court to infer and conclude there were available services at secure track in various areas related to a youth’s physical, mental, and social development that would likely be beneficial to J.F.’s rehabilitation.
Carlos J. does not compel a contrary conclusion. There, the record established the minor required “intensive treatment” to address PTSD and gang entrenchment, but “there was no evidence before the juvenile court regarding any ‘intensive treatment’ appellant might receive at the DJF.” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 10, italics added.) The “most critical issue” for the juvenile court to consider in determining probable benefit in that case was the need to weaken the youth’s gang affiliations, but the record contained “no information about the nature of the gang intervention services” available at DJF. (Id. at p. 11.)
Here, in contrast, we are not faced with a complete absence of information in the record regarding the programming J.F. will receive at secure track. As discussed, the probation report provided the juvenile court with a summary of available services at secure track through the SOARR program. And unlike the youth in Carlos J., J.F. does not have specific mental or social needs (e.g., PTSD, gang entrenchment) that require intensive treatment. Although there was evidence that J.F. suffered from anxiety related to a past shooting incident, there was no suggestion that he required specialized mental health services to treat it. As Carlos J. explained, “[w]here a minor has particular needs,” the probation report
juvenile court within 30 days after court issues order committing youth to secure track].) Because the individual rehabilitation plan did not exist at the time of disposition, we do not consider it as providing substantial evidence of probable benefit supporting the secure track commitment order.
21
should “include brief descriptions of the relevant programs to address those needs.” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 12, italics omitted.) But where, as here, the youth does not have particular needs that require more specific information, the probation report’s general summary of available services is sufficient to make an initial showing of probable benefit. As such, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude from the probation report that the general mental health services, along with the educational and vocational supports available through the SOARR program, would be of probable benefit to J.F.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order committing J.F. to secure track is affirmed.
_________________________
Fujisaki, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Petrou, J.
_________________________
Rodríguez, J.
People v. J.F. (A173765)