Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re A.N.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

May 2, 2017

In re A.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.N., Defendant and Appellant

         Review granted by, 07/19/2017

          Superior Court of Ventura County, No. 2015040294, William R. Redmond, Commissioner.

Page 404

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 405

         COUNSEL

         Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defender, Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy Public Defender, and William Quest, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

         California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Franchesca S. Verdin, Monica De La Hoya and Cynthia L. Rice as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

         Kamala 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 Respondent.

         Opinion by Tangeman, J., with Yegan, Acting P. J., and Perren, J., concurring.

          OPINION

          [217 Cal.Rptr.3d 390] TANGEMAN, J.

          A.N. 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.)[1] 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.

Page 406

         School 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.