In re A.M. CA3

DISCUSSION

I Legal Background Victim restitution is constitutionally and statutorily mandated in California. (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045; see Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13).) Section 730.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.” Alternatively, the statute permits a victim to obtain recovery from the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury, in which case the juvenile court shall order the minor to pay restitution to the Restitution Fund. (§ 730.6, subd. (i); see Gov. Code, §§ 13950-13966.) The statute defines “ ‘victim’ ” to include “[a] person who has sustained economic loss as the result of a crime and who . . . [¶] . . . [a]t the time of the crime was the parent . . . of the victim.” (§ 730.6, subd. (j); accord Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e).) We review a juvenile court’s decision to award restitution for abuse of discretion. (Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305.) We will find an abuse of…