Owen E. v. West , 23 Cal. 3d 398 ( 1979 )

BIRD, C. J.

I must respectfully dissent.

The majority today strip juvenile courts of their statutory power to vacate Youth Authority commitments when, in the court’s judgment, such action would be in a ward’s best interests. In so holding, the majority override the legislative mandate of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 775, 778 and 779. Adherence to these statutes requires this court to affirm the juvenile court’s order.

The Legislature has vested in juvenile courts broad powers to amend dispositional orders. Welfare and Institutions Code section 775, ignored by the majority, provides that “[djny order made by the [juvenile] court in the case of any person subject to its jurisdiction may at any time be changed, modified, or set aside, as the judge deems meet and proper . . . .”¹ (Italics added.) Further, section 778 allows the ward, a parent, or an interested party to petition the juvenile court to amend or set aside a previous order on the grounds of “new evidence” or “change of circumstance.”1 ² That same statute provides that the court shall hold a hearing on the petition if it appears that the proposed change may promote the ward’s “best interests.” Finally, section 779 specifically empowers the juvenile court to “change, modify, or set aside” a previous order committing a minor to the Youth Authority.³ (See In re Arthur N. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 226, 238, fn. 15 [127 Cal.Rptr. 641, 545 P.2d 1345].) These three sections authorize a juvenile court to vacate a Youth Authority commitment whenever changed circumstances convince the court that a different disposition would be in a ward’s best interest.

The majority reject this clear grant of authority by focusing on two cautionary statements in section 779. The first requires juvenile court judges who amend or vacate a commitment order to “give due consideration to the effect thereof upon the discipline and parole system of the Youth Authority . . . However, the absence of prohibitory language in the sentence underscores the fact that the Legislature did not intend to prevent juvenile courts from setting aside commitment orders. Rather, the Legislature merely sought to have the court deliberate upon the effect of vacating a commitment, to insure that the court does not hastily or unnecessarily interfere with parole determinations.⁴

The majority also focus on the fourth sentence of section 779. There, after having given juvenile courts the power to set aside Youth Authority commitments, the Legislature states: “Except as in this section provided, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with the [Youth Authority’s] system of parole and discharge . . . .” (Italics added.) It is curious that in describing this provision, the majority omit reference to the italicized introductory clause.⁵ (Maj. opn., ante, p. 403.) That clause plainly signifies a legislative recognition that by authorizing juvenile courts to set aside commitment orders, the Legislature was creating an exception to the Youth Authority’s exclusive discretion in parole matters. If the Legislature had not intended to allow the exercise of judicial discretion in this area, it would not have written the introductory clause. In omitting that clause from their analysis, the majority are less than faithful to the plain language and meaning of the statute.

To reach their result, the majority also take great liberty with the case law. The majority quote In re Arthur TV., supra, 16 Cal.3d at pages 237-238 for the proposition that commitment to the Youth Authority “removes the ward from the direct supervision of the juvenile court.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 404.) However, the majority ignore the footnote qualifying that statement: “The court may, however, set aside the commitment on notice and hearing and return the minor to the former wardship status. (§ 779.)” (16 Cal.3d at p. 238, fn. 15.)

Further, the majority’s summary description of Breed v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 773 [134 Cal.Rptr. 228], on which they heavily rely, is misleading. (Maj. opn., ante, p. 404.) In Breed, the Youth Authority returned a difficult ward to the juvenile court. After the court declined to set aside the original order committing the ward to the Youth Authority, the Youth Authority refused to accept his return. The juvenile court then released the ward from his interim custody until the Youth Authority agreed to accept his return.

On these facts, the Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court’s temporary release of the minor was “a technical error” since section 779 prohibits juvenile courts from interfering with the Youth Authority’s system of discharge except where the court changes, modifies or sets aside the original order of commitment. (Id., at pp. 781, 788.) The ward’s release in Breed did not result from a change, modification, or setting aside of the original commitment. Indeed, the judge expressly declined to do so. (Id., at pp. 782, 785.) Thus, Breed differs critically from this case and in no way limits the power of juvenile courts to discharge wards from the Youth Authority under the first sentence of section 779.⁶

Again, in citing In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315 [137 Cal.Rptr. 781, 562 P.2d 684], the majority rely on a case which is inapposite. Ronald E. holds that in the absence of authorizing legislation, parole revocation proceedings may not be initiated in juvenile court. (Id, at p. 326.) This holding is entirely consistent with the juvenile courts’ power to set aside Youth Authority commitments since section 779 expressly authorizes such action.

Finally, the majority seek support in Holder v. Superior Court (1970) I Cal.3d 779 [83 Cal.Rptr. 353, 463 P.2d 705] and Alanis v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 784 [83 Cal.Rptr. 355, 463 P.2d 707]. Holder and Alanis are readily distinguished from the present case since they both involve interpretation of the adult sentencing law as opposed to the Juvenile Court Law. The adult law includes no provisions comparable to sections 775, 778 and 779. The courts’ broad powers to change juvenile dispositions under these sections are in keeping with the special concern of the Juvenile Court Law with the welfare and rehabilitation of young people under its jurisdiction. (§ 202; see, e.g., T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 767, 775 [94 Cal.Rptr. 813, 484 P.2d 981].)

Clearly, the case law does not support the majority’s conclusion that the Legislature did not mean what it plainly stated in sections 775, 778 and 779. These statutes give juvenile courts the authority to set aside Youth Authority commitments to promote a ward’s best interests. Nothing in these statutes purports to limit this power to situations where the Youth Authority “has failed to comply with law or has abused its discretion.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 406.) To the contrary, the court is accorded great discretion in determining whether the circumstances justify a change in disposition or total termination of the court’s jurisdiction.⁷ (See fn. 1, ante; In re W.R.W. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1037 [95 Cal.Rptr. 354].) “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, an appellate court is not free to interfere with the trial court’s order.” (In re Corey (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 813, 831-832 [41 Cal.Rptr. 379].)

In the present case, a review of the evidence establishes that the juvenile court did not abuse its broad discretion in finding “a very great change of circumstances” and in setting aside Owen’s Youth Authority commitment. The annual review made by Owen’s immediate supervisors at the Youth Authority indicated that Owen had made “superior progress” in achieving the goals set in his rehabilitation program, and that his schoolwork was “outstanding.” The report also stated that Owen “possessed leadership qualities,” avoided negative influences, and was a “self-starter.” The report concluded that “he should have no problem whatsoever maintaining any job he should happen to have.” Owen’s evaluators recommended his release.

In addition, a psychiatrist testifying on Owen’s behalf stated that Owen had arrived at a philosophical understanding of his role in his father’s death and that the chance of a recurrence of such violence was remote. The Youth Authority’s experts agreed that the killing was an isolated incident and that Owen was not a hazard to the community.

Further, the evidence was uncontradicted that Owen had the potential ability to play professional baseball. However, the Youth Authority facilities where he was confined were inadequate to develop this talent.

On this record, it is clear that substantial evidence supported the trial judge’s determination in this case. The evidence showed that Owen had made significant progress in the Youth Authority, that he was not a threat to the safety of the public, and that his educational and professional opportunities would be enhanced by his release. Experts for both Owen and the Youth Authority testified that denial of release could impede his progress. The trial court’s decision to set aside the Youth Authority commitment and to order outpatient psychiatric care for Owen was well within its discretion.

The trial court’s order should be affirmed.

Tobriner, J., and Newman, J., concurred.

Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 29, 1979. Bird, C. J., and Tobriner, J. were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

1 From the italicized language, it is evident that the Legislature intended to give juvenile court judges wide discretion to amend or vacate their previous orders, including dispositional orders.

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Section 778: “Any parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a ward of the juvenile court or the child himself through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a ward of the juvenile court for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. The petition shall be verified and, if made by a person other than the child, shall state the petitioner’s relationship to or interest in the child and shall set forth in concise language any change of circumstance or new evidence which are alleged to require such change of order or termination of jurisdiction.

“If it appears that the best interests of the child may be promoted by the proposed change of order or termination of jurisdiction, the court shall order that a hearing be held and shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to such persons and by such means as prescribed by Sections 776 and 779, and, in such instances as the means of giving notice is not prescribed by such sections, then by such means as the court prescribes.”

3 Section 779 provides in pertinent part: “The court committing a ward to the Youth Authority may thereafter change, modify, or set aside the order of commitment. Ten days’ notice of the hearing of the application therefor shall be served by United States mail upon the Director of the Youth Authority. In changing, modifying, or setting aside such order of commitment, the court shall give due consideration to the effect thereof upon the discipline and parole system of the Youth Authority or of the correctional school in which the ward may have been placed by the Youth Authority. Except as in this section provided, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with the system of parole and discharge now or hereafter established by law, or by rule of the Youth Authority, for the parole and discharge of wards of the juvenile court committed to the Youth Authority, or with the management of any school, institution, or facility under the jurisdiction of the Youth Authority. Except as in this section provided, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with the system of transfer between institutions and facilities under the jurisdiction of the Youth Authority.”

4 In this case, the judge expressly considered the effect of his order. He acknowledged that “a court should not step in in case after case with the Youth Authority unless there is a serious reason for it.” He concluded that under the proper circumstances, vacating an earlier commitment would not intrude on the Youth Authority’s parole system or treatment plan.

5 It is also curious that the majority overlook section 1704, which provides that “[n]othing in [the Youth Authority Act] shall be deemed to interfere with or limit the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” Under this provision, the Legislature’s grant of discretion in parole matters to the Youth Authority (§§ 1711.3, 1765, 1766) cannot be deemed to interfere with or limit the juvenile court’s continuing jurisdiction over wards committed to the Youth Authority (§ 607). Yet this is precisely what the majority do in holding that the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to set aside a commitment order is limited to situations where the Youth Authority has abused its discretion.

6 The majority also quote out of context Breed’s statement that “[t]he Legislature has properly delegated to the Youth Authority the discretion to determine whether its facilities will be or are of benefit to the ward.” (Id, at p. 785; maj. opn., ante, p. 404.) The majority omit the statutory authority Breed cites for this proposition: sections 736 and 780. These statutes respectively describe (1) the kinds of persons whom the Youth Authority shall accept (§ 736), and (2) the kinds of persons whom the Youth Authority may return to the committing court (§ 780). Neither provision is involved in this case. Neither provision in any way limits section 779’s grant of authority to juvenile courts to set aside an original order committing a minor to the Youth Authority.

7 Indeed, the court has a duty to terminate its jurisdiction when it becomes convinced on the evidence that the ward no longer requires the court’s supervision. (See, e.g., In re Francecisco (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 310, 314 [94 Cal.Rptr. 186].)