Reported / Citable
Background
Tehama County filed a juvenile petition against C.M. after an alleged burglary and firearm assault, while Glenn County pursued a probation violation from an existing wardship. Both matters were sustained in part. By disposition C.M. had turned 18, but both juvenile courts transferred their cases to Mariposa County because one or both parents lived there.
Mariposa County appealed, arguing that the transfer courts used the wrong residence rule. Welfare and Institutions Code section 750 permits transfer when a minor is found to reside in another county. Related provisions generally tie a minor’s residence to a parent or legal custodian. The dispute was whether that parental rule continued to control after a juvenile-court ward reached adulthood.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District reversed both transfers. Although juvenile-court jurisdiction can continue after age 18, the Legislature used “minor” deliberately in section 750. Once C.M. became an adult, his residence could not automatically be derived from his parents’ residence. The transfer courts therefore erred at the threshold by treating Mariposa County as his residence without determining where C.M. himself resided.
The court distinguished continued wardship jurisdiction from minority status: a person can remain subject to juvenile supervision without remaining a minor for every statutory purpose. It also declined to decide whether the transfer courts separately violated the rule requiring consideration of the child’s best interests. Because the residence finding was legally defective, reversal was already required. The court stressed that counties may place wards elsewhere when appropriate, but may not shift the administrative and financial responsibility for a wardship without satisfying the governing transfer statutes.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 18 or older, but that does not make the person a “minor” under every transfer statute.
- For an adult ward, a parent’s county of residence does not automatically establish the ward’s residence under section 750.
- Transfer courts must make a supported residence determination before considering whether an intercounty transfer should occur.
- Placement in another county and transfer of the entire wardship are distinct decisions with different fiscal and administrative consequences.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives county counsel, probation departments, and juvenile defenders a clear sequence for transfer disputes involving older youth. The record should establish the ward’s age at the relevant time, actual living arrangements, custodial status, intended residence, and the statutory basis for assigning responsibility to another county.
That discipline matters because transferring a case moves supervision duties and costs; it is not merely a convenient venue change. Counties receiving a transfer should promptly challenge unsupported residence findings. Courts should also create a record on best interests when the applicable rule may require it, even though the Third District left that issue unresolved here.
The opinion also cautions against using placement facts as a shortcut. A youth may be housed, supervised, or treated in a county without legally residing there for transfer purposes. Lawyers should identify the precise finding the statute demands and ensure the order states the evidence supporting it. That record protects the ward and prevents responsibility from being shifted through assumption rather than adjudication.
On remand, the transfer courts must reconsider residence under the rule applicable to an adult ward. Any new transfer order should identify the evidence of C.M.’s own residence rather than rely on either parent’s address.