In re T.A. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant does not challenge the amount of the original restitution award, i.e., $2,336.38. She concedes she is estopped from challenging the award’s conversion into a civil judgment because she expressly consented to the action at hearing. (See In re K.C. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 465, 472-473 [minor may consent to acts in excess of jurisdiction when beneficial to the parties and consistent with public policy].) She contends only that the

2 juvenile court exceeded its authority when it ordered her to pay interest from the date of loss. “‘[W]here the specific issue is whether a court has the authority to issue restitution, we review that question of law independently.’” (In re S.E. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 795, 803, quoting In re S.O. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1098.) “‘No court has discretion to make an order not authorized by law.’” (S.E., at p. 804, quoting In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 661.) Section 730.6 provides for mandatory victim restitution “in cases where a minor is adjudicated a ward of the court pursuant to section 602.” (In re M.W. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1, 4.) “Section 730.6 parallels Penal Code section 1202.4, which governs adult restitution.”…