Can a Juvenile Filed an Amended Petition to Seal?

In a juvenile court petition to seal, one lists the government agencies that the juvenile would like the judge to order to destroy juvenile records from the matter at issue.  The issue then becomes what to do if later, juvenile records are discovered still existing in other government agencies not covered by the original petition to seal.  Can one file a second, or supplemental, petition to seal?

The answer was recently provided by the California Court of Appeal for the First District (in San Francisco) in the case of In re A.B. (filed August 3, 2023).

In 2009, when A.B. was thirteen years old, he pled no contest to two charges (not listed under Welfare & Institutions Code § 707(b)) in Costa County Juvenile Court, was declared a ward of the court and was placed on probation.  He then successfully completed probation in 2014.

Almost eight years later, A.B. and the Contra Costa Probation Department petitioned to have his juvenile court and public agency records sealed under Welfare & Institutions Code § 781.  In his request, A.B. stated that since his juvenile adjudication, he had not sustained any criminal convictions, had married and had a child and had remained steadily employed in the information technology section. 

The judge granted the petition.  It ordered five government agencies listed in the petition to seal and ultimately destroy any of A.B.’s juvenile records in their custody.

About three months after the sealing order was entered, A.B. discovered that several public agencies not subject to the original sealing order had retained and were able to access his juvenile records.

A.B. therefore petitioned to seal these additional agency records, again pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code § 781.  The People did not oppose the petition.  However, the judge denied A.B.’s supplemental petition, concluding that it lacked the authority to seal additional records after the initial sealing order was entered in January 2022.  The judge stated that had the additional agencies been listed in A.B.’s first petition, they would have been ordered to seal their records. 

A.B. then appealed this order to the California Court of Appeal for the First District.  In response to A.B.’s petition, the People agreed that the judge had made a mistake.

The First Appellate District Court also agreed that the juvenile court had made a mistake.  It explained that Welfare & Institutions Code § 781(a)(1)(A) states, “[I]n any case at any time after the person has reached 18 years of age, [the person or the county probation officer may] petition the court for sealing of the records, including records of arrest, relating to the person’s case, in the custody of the juvenile court and probation officer and any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies, entities and public officials as the petitioner alleges, in the petition, to have custody of the records.”

Section 781 continues, “If, after hearing, the court finds that since the termination of jurisdiction . . . the person has not been convicted of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and that rehabilitation has been attained to the satisfaction of the court, it shall order all records, papers, and exhibits in the person’s case in the custody of the juvenile court sealed, including the juvenile court record, minute book entries, and entries on dockets, and any other records relating to the case in the custody of the other agencies, entities and official as are named in the order.”

The First Appellate District then pointed out that although the statute does not expressly state whether a supplemental or amended petition is permitted, it agreed with A.B. and the People that § 781 certainly does not bar such a petition when the first petition fails to seal all juvenile records.  In regard, it agreed that the trial court erred.

In short, nothing limits the qualifying person to a single petition.  Indeed, when a juvenile offender’s initial petition is denied, that offender may file a subsequent petition.  See In re J.W. (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 663, 670.  The court added that its interpretation of the statute as permitting this was consistent with the legislative intent underlying § 781: “to protect minors from future prejudice resulting from their juvenile records.” In re Jeffrey T. (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1015, 1020.

Moreover, giving rehabilitated juvenile offenders a clean slate also serves one of the main objectives of the juvenile delinquency system – rehabilitation.  See Welfare & Institutions Code § 202(b); In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 423, 432.