In re Albert C.

Albert C. was arrested for threatening a a public officer.  Filed against him was a 602 petition his appearance upon which the judge released him to his mother.  Albert ran away from home shortly after.  Approximately six months later he was arrested for, among other things, felony assault, for which another 602 petition was filed.

Upon return to court, Albert's lawyer doubted Albert's trial competence and the proceedings were suspended.  A doctor opined that Albert was incompetent, the judge found same, and the court ordered Albert to remain in juvenile hall while the state attempted to render him competent.

After around 300 days of "competency training" the court held another hearing.  A different doctor was appointed to assess Albert and found he remained incompetent.  An employee of the business with whom the county contracted to provide competency training for Albert testified he had not passed their competency quiz yet, although his recent scores were improved over his past scores.

The judge felt that Albert was "exaggerating" his responses on the competency quiz and found Albert competent.  Because the California Supreme Court has held a minor is presumed competent and has the evidentiary burden to prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence, all the trial judge has to do is reject the doctor's opinion and slump upon the presumption. After being found competent, Albert admitted a charge in each of the two petitions, was declared a delinquency ward and ordered into placement.  He appealed.

A panel from the Second District affirms.

Two points, apart from the central legal issues, stand out from my reading of this opinion.  First, California's Welfare and Institutions Code fails to provide statutory procedures to protect the interests of juveniles who are the subject of incompetency proceedings.  It is excerebrose that an adult in the same situation would have been removed from jail and taken to a state hospital where he would have received treatment, supervision, and competency training from licensed physicians, nurses, and psychologists, while minors stay in jail and receive 30 minutes of competency training a week from a lowest-bidder outside contractor (I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions as to the quality of the "competency" program here).  Because the Code is bereft of any humane procedure, a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles laudably drafted a procedure, "the Protocol".  However, the panel held that the "Protocol" did not have the force of law and thus, Albert was not entitled to its protections.

Second, kids who are dependency wards suffer unnecessarily when they are pending 602 petitions as social services' limacine efforts at finding suitable housing (anticipating a possible delinquency wardship) combine with dependency courts' reluctance to fund level 14 placements (Albert stayed in jail for four additional months despite a suitable placement being available because the dependency judge "failed to fund the placement", pg.6).  The result is that the children with the greatest need for services are the last to receive them.