In re R.B. CA2/1

DISCUSSION

Appellant maintains that once the juvenile court reduced the allegation to a misdemeanor, it should have imposed a nonwardship probation under section 725, subdivision (a), instead of declaring him a ward of the court and ordering him home on probation. We conclude otherwise. We review a juvenile court’s commitment decision for abuse of discretion, indulging all reasonable inferences to support the decision. It is the juvenile court’s duty to determine the most appropriate placement for the minor. (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329–1330; In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.) Under this standard, we “‘“indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the court and will not disturb its factual findings when there is substantial evidence to support them.”’” (In re Robert H., at p. 1330; In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1135 [juvenile court determination will be reversed only if court acted beyond the scope of reason].) Section 725 states that: “After receiving and considering the evidence on the proper disposition of the case, the court may enter judgment as follows: “(a) If the court has found that the minor is a…