#Gladys baker morris age code
7 We hold, however, that Welfare and Institutions Code sections 701, 702, and 706 prohibit the judge from reading the social report before the jurisdictional hearing. It undoubtedly believed that its perusal of the report prior to a decision on the jurisdictional issue would provide helpful background information. 6 We recognize that the juvenile court in this case acted entirely within its view of the best interest of the child. 5 This procedure affords a necessary protection against the premature resolution of the jurisdictional issue on the basis of legally incompetent material in the social report.Ī prohibition of review of the social report before a determination of the jurisdictional issue does not hinder the creation of a court atmosphere conducive to a just consideration of the juvenile's case. 4 clearly indicates that the Legislature intended to create a bifurcated juvenile court procedure in which the court would first determine whether the facts of the case would support the jurisdiction of the court in declaring a wardship and thereafter would consider the social study report at a hearing on the appropriate disposition of that ward. The history of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 701, fn. The court committed reversible error in reviewing the social study report before the determination of the issue of jurisdiction. The report contains matter not relevant to the jurisdiction of the court and therefore inadmissible at the hearing on that issue. The quoted comments clearly indicate that the court examined the social study report prior to its determination of whether appellant had committed an act that would warrant the court's declaration of a wardship. The social study tells the Court whether the child has a prior record, where the child is now, what the child told the probation officer when interviewed, what the parents told the probation officer when interviewed, the child's school report, welfare report, juvenile hall report, psychological, psychiatric and medical reports, personal history and family backgrounds, and last of all the probation officer evaluates that information and data and makes a recommendation to the Court." (Italics added.) Immediately after accepting factual allegations that the child committed acts which could invoke the jurisdiction of the court under section 602, the juvenile court proceeded: "Now, we come to the question of what action should be taken, and in this connection, the Court has been supplied with a special report called a social study, which is ordered admitted in evidence at this time and which has been thoroughly reviewed by the Court. The Santa Clara County Superior Court, sitting as a juvenile court, found that the appellant's conduct brought her within the terms of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because she committed an act proscribed by Penal Code section 647a (annoying or molesting a child under 18). Finally, we hold that the juvenile court may declare a juvenile a ward under section 602 for perpetration of an act proscribed by Penal Code section 647a with an abnormal sexual interest or intent. 1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (Pen. We also conclude that the juvenile court should consider whether a child appreciates the wrongfulness of her conduct in determining whether the child should be declared a ward under section 602 fn. Code, § 800.) For the reasons we shall point out, the court committed reversible error in reviewing the social study report before the jurisdictional hearing (Welf. Gladys R., a 12-year-old girl, appeals from a judgment declaring her a ward of the court and committing her to the custody of the probation officer for private institutional placement. Kirk, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Hastings, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.
Sheldon Portmen, Public Defender, Carl Lee Lambert and Thomas C. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Burke, J., with McComb, J., concurring.) J., Peters, Mosk and Sullivan, JJ., concurring. (Opinion by Tobriner, J., with Traynor, C. GLADYS R., a Minor, etc., Defendant and Appellant. NINO, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. In re GLADYS R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
0 kommentar(er)
