In re Aline D.

536 P.2d 65 (1975)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Aline D.

California Supreme Court
536 P.2d 65 (1975)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Minor Aline D. (defendant) had a history of assaultive conduct, gang affiliation, and very low IQ. Aline’s mother had rejected her, and Aline’s father was absent. Aline was a ward of the juvenile court. Regarding placement, Aline’s first stay at a treatment program in juvenile hall for several months was not successful. Aline was released to her mother but ran away from home within a week. Aline was disqualified from placement in a community daycare program due to her low IQ. Between September 1972 and February 1973, attempts were made to place Aline in numerous different settings, which were unsuccessful for various reasons. At a girls’ home, Aline had problems with stealing, truancy, and gang participation. Aline’s stay at the Penny Lane residential school was terminated after 10 days due to Aline’s use of drugs, bullying, and gang activity. Aline’s stay at the Detroit Arms Home was terminated due to her active association with a gang. Aline was placed back in juvenile hall, which was only for temporary detentions. Las Palmas Girls School rejected Aline as a candidate due to her history of assaultive behavior. The juvenile court held a hearing to determine whether Aline should be committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA), a youth correctional facility typically reserved for the most serious youth offenders. The court heard a variety of evidence, including psychiatric reports and probation reports. There was a lack of suitable placement options for Aline. The court discussed how the experts agreed that Aline was not an “appropriate subject for commitment to the youth authority, but that it [was] being done only because that seems to be the only recourse.” The juvenile court reluctantly signed an order committing Aline to the CYA, noting she would wind up homeless otherwise. Aline appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Richardson, J.)

Dissent (Clark, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership