Mario G., a Minor

ORDER

Appellate Opinion Decertified IN RE MARION G., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW THE PEOPLE Appellant v. MARIO G. Respondent C.A. 4th, Division 3, No. G020462 S069929 California Supreme Court Filed July 8, 1998
        Appellant's petition for review DENIED.
        Mosk J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted.
        Brown, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted.
        The Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish in the Official Appellate Reports the opinion in the above-entitled appeal filed March 27, 1998, which appears at __ Cal. App. 4th __. (Cal. Const., art. VI, section 14, rule 976, Cal. Rules of Court.)


(Editor Note - For your convenience we reprint below the Daily Jounal's Ruling Column brief which summarized the earlier decision of thelover court.)


JUVENILES
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE


Father whose identity is unknown and not ascertainable isn't entitled to notice of jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.


        The C.A. 4th has concluded that a juvenile court erred in believing that it lost jurisdiction over a minor who had been adjudged a ward of the court and who had not completed the terms of his probation simply because the minor turned 21.
        In 1992 Mario G. was made a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602. Mario was ordered to pay restitution as directed by his probation officer. In 1995 the Orange County District Attorney filed a petition based on Mario's failure to pay all of the restitution owed. Mario had only paid about $350 of the $1,166 he owed due to incarceration, injury, and unemployment. In September 1995 the juvenile court held a restitution review hearing and set the amount owing at $671. The matter was continued until April 1996. Mario failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. A supplemental petition against Mario alleged failure to pay restitution, possession of burglary tools and possession of a weapon replica. Mario was arrested in July, two days after his 21st birthday. When he appeared in juvenile court, the probation department recommended dismissal of the petitions, all financial orders, and termination of wardship. No reason was given for the recommendation. The juvenile court stated that it was not happy with Mario but that it no longer had jurisdiction over him because he had reached the age of 21. The juvenile court dismissed all of the petitions and vacated the financial orders. The district attorney contended that the juvenile court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over Mario.
        The C.A. 4th reversed and remanded. A juvenile court's jurisdiction usually terminates when a minor attains the age of 21. However, Welfare & Institutions Code Section 607(e) provides that a juvenile court can retain jurisdiction over a minor who is the subject of an arrest warrant. This section appeared to cover Mario's situation, despite his protestations that the statute was only to be applied to minors who escaped from the California Youth Authority. "Mario's argument misses the mark. The legislative history on which he relies merely states the impetus behind subdivision (e); it does not define its limits. If the Legislature had intended to limit the scope of subdivision (e) to youth authority escapes, we presume it would have used those words. . . . A broad interpretation of subdivision (e) sends the message juveniles cannot escape the obligations of their wardship by running away, not an uncommon reaction by errant teens."

        Mario G., a Minor, C.A. 4th, No. G020462, filed March 37, 1998, by Wallin, J.
        The full text of this case appears in 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7307, July 2, 1998.