In Cardenas v. Eggleston Youth Center (1987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 331, plaintiff was attacked by a minor who had been placed by the juvenile court in a state-licensed group home as a condition of probation. The attack occurred at a convenience store after the minor obtained a pass to leave the home. ( Cardenas, supra, 193 Cal. App. 3d at p. 333.) Plaintiff alleged that the facility had a duty to the general public to exercise custody and control of its residents and to protect him from their violent behavior; that it encouraged violent behavior by providing the opportunity to "interact" with the residents of the community in which the attack occurred; and that it knew or should have known of the minor's violent propensities but failed to remove him from the facility. (Ibid.) Defendant demurred and argued that it had no choice but to accept the placement of the minor. ( Id. at p. 334.) On appeal, the court upheld the granting of a demurrer without leave to amend. Adopting the reasoning in Beauchene v. Synanon Foundation, Inc. (1979), it held that a private rehabilitation facility for criminal offenders owes no duty of care to members of the general community in which it is located for the criminal acts of its residents. ( Id. at pp. 335-336.) In so holding, the court emphasized the "indispensable public function " of private rehabilitation programs "particularly in these times of overcrowded penal facilities." ( Id. at p. 335.)