In re T.F.-A. CA1/4

DISCUSSION

Additional Background Before announcing its judgment, the court reviewed Minor’s history as a section 300 dependent. The court also noted Minor’s prior delinquency cases related to vehicle theft, receiving stolen property, and evading and assaulting a peace officer. The

3 court commented that the probation officer “indicated that an STRTP would be a good placement, but it depends on the willingness of the individual to participate.” The court pointed out that Minor has “a history of not wanting to participate” in services. The court then moved on to discuss comments made by Minor, indicating he was “going to do better” and “change the people [he] h[u]ng out with.” The court, however, observed that “some of these things that [Minor] did were all by [him]self,” and that during the last carjacking attempt, “it appears, that [Minor] had an adult with [him].” The court selected JDF as the appropriate placement in the interests of both Minor and the public, given that Minor “went from being moderate risk” to being “high risk for prior and current offenses,” and in light of the likelihood that Minor would leave an unlocked facility like a STRTP. The court emphasized that JDF…