Reported / Citable
Background
In 2024, a Marin County juvenile court ordered four co-offenders jointly and severally liable for $15,850.54 in victim restitution. The restitution covered a victim’s lost wages and her mother’s lost wages and childcare costs after the minor offenders’ misconduct required the victim’s family to restructure daily life around the fallout. Two of the four minors — J.L. and O.V. — appealed, challenging a small portion of the childcare award and raising a more significant question about a brand-new state law.
Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1186, amending Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 to eliminate joint and several liability among juvenile co-offenders. Under the new law, each minor is severally liable only, with restitution apportioned to each minor’s percentage of responsibility. J.L. and O.V. argued the amendment applies retroactively to their still-pending case, which would allow remand for the court to divide the $15,850.54 obligation among all four minors.
The First District Court of Appeal had previously ruled this issue in a December 2025 opinion, finding the new law prospective only. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back with directions to reconsider in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Ellingburg v. United States (2026) 607 U.S. 163, a federal retroactivity case. The Court of Appeal has now reconsidered and reached the same conclusion.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s restitution order on both issues raised. On the childcare expense challenge, the court found sufficient evidence to support the $3,850 award: Mother documented over 30 specific dates when she needed babysitting services at $120–$150 per day, more than enough to support her request. California law does not require exact documentation of every loss date; a victim’s reasonable estimate is sufficient once a prima facie showing is made.
On the retroactivity question — the central legal holding — the court held that Assembly Bill 1186’s elimination of joint and several liability in juvenile restitution cases applies prospectively only. The Legislature did not expressly state retroactive intent, and the statutory scheme, which includes savings clauses and forward-looking effective dates, indicates the Legislature intended the new rule for cases arising after January 1, 2025. Even after reconsidering Ellingburg — a federal case interpreting federal retroactivity rules — the court concluded federal retroactivity doctrine does not require a different outcome under California’s independent framework.
Key Takeaways
- Juvenile co-offenders found liable for restitution before January 1, 2025, remain jointly and severally liable under the old law — they cannot demand retroactive apportionment under AB 1186.
- AB 1186’s prospectivity means the change to individual, percentage-based liability applies only to restitution orders in cases adjudicated on or after January 1, 2025.
- Victim restitution for childcare costs caused by a minor’s offense is recoverable even without a precise day-by-day accounting — courts may rely on reasonable victim estimates supported by general context.
- The California Supreme Court’s interim transfer in light of Ellingburg v. United States did not ultimately change the outcome: the First District applied California’s own retroactivity analysis and reached the same conclusion it had before.
- Defense practitioners challenging pending joint-and-several restitution orders should not expect AB 1186 to retroactively reduce their client’s exposure.
Why It Matters
This decision settles a question that juvenile defense attorneys across California have been watching closely since AB 1186 took effect. Many cases where restitution was imposed before January 1, 2025 — including cases still on direct appeal — will remain governed by the old joint-and-several rule. Co-offenders with deeper pockets cannot escape their full restitution exposure by pointing to the new statute.
The opinion also illustrates how California courts handle the interaction of state retroactivity doctrine and federal constitutional developments: even where the U.S. Supreme Court issues a relevant ruling, California courts independently apply state law principles to determine whether a new statute reaches back in time.