California Court of Appeal Holds Family Home Can Qualify as Less Restrictive Program for Juvenile Offenders

The ruling addressed a dispute involving Sebastian C., who was committed to a secure youth treatment facility at age 14 after admitting to voluntary manslaughter. With nine months remaining on his baseline term in January 2025, the Solano County probation department petitioned to place him in his adult sister’s home as part of a supervised independent living placement.

The probation department argued the placement would allow Sebastian to access extended foster care services and funding unavailable through other less restrictive options. The proposed plan included weekly probation contacts, therapy referrals through Seneca Family of Agencies, independent living workshops, and cognitive behavioral programming.

The Solano County Superior Court denied the request, with Judge Terrye Davis concluding that a relative’s residence did not constitute a "program" under the statute. The trial court reasoned that section 875 requires the less restrictive program itself to provide community transition services, which a private home could not do.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Goldman rejected this narrow interpretation. The court held that "placement in a family home with supervision and programming provided by a community-based agency can meet the requirements of a less restrictive program under section 875, subdivision (f)."

Justice Goldman noted that the statute identifies "community nonresidential service program" as an example of a less restrictive placement and clarified that "a ward could receive programming or services from a community nonresidential service program while being housed in a relative's home."

The court also cited guidance from the state’s Offices of Youth and Community Restoration, which emphasized that "whenever possible, home with robust supports as detailed in youths' [individualized rehabilitation plans] should be utilized as less restrictive programs."

Although the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because Sebastian had subsequently been placed in his mother’s home, Justice Goldman exercised discretion to resolve the legal issue. The court determined that interpreting section 875, subdivision (f) was a matter of public importance that would provide helpful clarification for trial courts.