## Facts

- A 12-year-old minor was charged in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 based on alleged conduct violating Penal Code § 647a (annoying or molesting a child under 18).
- The juvenile court declared the minor a ward and committed her to the probation officer for private institutional placement.
- Before determining whether the minor committed the alleged act(s), the juvenile court admitted and reviewed a probation “social study” report containing background and evaluative material (e.g., prior record information, interviews, school and psychological/psychiatric material, and recommendations).
- Materials before the court indicated the minor’s mental and social development was substantially below her chronological age (approximately that of a seven-year-old).
- The minor appealed the wardship judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether it is reversible error for a juvenile court to review and admit a probation social study report before making the jurisdictional finding that the minor committed the alleged delinquent act.
2. Whether, in a § 602 proceeding involving a child under 14, the court must apply Penal Code § 26 by requiring clear proof the child knew the wrongfulness of the conduct.
3. Whether an act proscribed by Penal Code § 647a may support wardship under § 602, and if so, under what limiting construction of § 647a.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the wardship judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held it was reversible error for the juvenile court to consider the social study before deciding the jurisdictional question whether the minor committed the alleged act.
- The court held Penal Code § 26 applies in § 602 proceedings for children under 14; wardship requires clear proof the child appreciated the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the act.
- The court held a juvenile may be declared a ward under § 602 for violating Penal Code § 647a when the act is committed with an abnormal sexual interest or intent.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile adjudication must be separated from disposition: social study materials prepared for dispositional purposes may not be received or considered until after the court finds the minor comes within Welfare and Institutions Code § 602.
- For minors under 14 in § 602 proceedings, Penal Code § 26’s presumption of incapacity applies; the prosecution must present clear proof the child knew the conduct was wrongful.
- Penal Code § 647a supports delinquency jurisdiction only when construed to require abnormal sexual interest or intent; nonsexual or trivial conduct does not satisfy the statute as applied in delinquency proceedings.
- When procedural error contaminates the jurisdictional phase, reversal is required and the matter must be reheard under proper jurisdictional procedures, including any required capacity determination.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the wardship adjudication because the juvenile court improperly considered a probation social study before deciding jurisdiction and because a child under 14 cannot be adjudged a delinquent under § 602 without clear proof of knowledge of wrongfulness under Penal Code § 26; it also confirmed that § 647a can support wardship only when the conduct is sexually motivated in the statutory sense.


In re Gladys R., 1 Cal. 3d 855, 83 Cal. Rptr. 671, 464 P.2d 127 (Cal. 1970)