California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
In re A.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
A.N., Defendant and Appellant
granted by, 07/19/2017
Superior Court of Ventura County, No. 2015040294, William R.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
P. Lipson, Public Defender, Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy
Public Defender, and William Quest, Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Franchesca S. Verdin, Monica De
La Hoya and Cynthia L. Rice as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Appellant.
D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A.
Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters,
Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Tannaz
Kouhpainezhad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
by Tangeman, J., with Yegan, Acting P. J., and Perren, J.,
Cal.Rptr.3d 390] TANGEMAN, J.
refused to go to school. She demonstrated her unwavering
commitment to avoiding an education when she earned more than
25 unexcused absences during the first half of the academic
year. As required, school officials made a "
conscientious effort" to meet with A.N. and her parents
to address her absenteeism. (Ed. Code, §
48262.) They then referred her case to the
School Attendance Review Board (SARB). (§ 48263.) But
A.N.'s behavior never changed. School officials thus
turned to the juvenile court in their continuing effort to
compel A.N.'s attendance. She objects, contending that
the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction because school
officials failed to sequence their disciplinary and
counseling resources in conformity with law. We disagree.
officials did everything they could and should do to
educate--not abandon--A.N., and they did so in conformity
with the law. The juvenile court properly determined that
" available public and private services [were]
insufficient or inappropriate to correct [A.N.'s]
habitual truancy ... or to correct [her] persistent or
habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders ...