In People v. Kentron D. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1381, a probation officer named Manning filed a section 777 petition alleging five counts of probation violations. Each count contained the observations of one or more probation officers at minor's camp community placement program. Manning was not one of the officers named in the five counts. (Kentron D., at pp. 1384-1386, 1393.) When the matter was set for hearing, defense counsel objected to the admission of the report into evidence and requested that all the probation officers be present. ( Id. at p. 1386.) At the hearing, the prosecution submitted on the report and did not call any of the four probation officers from the camp that were present in court. ( Id. at p. 1387.) Defense counsel objected to the section 777 notice as inadmissible hearsay and argued that it was not the defense's burden to call any of the witnesses against the minor. (Kentron D., at p. 1387.) The juvenile court overruled the defense objection, admitted the report, and found minor in violation of probation. (Ibid.) The Court concluded that, on the counts for which the accusing probation officers were present in court, there was no showing of good cause that allowed the People to submit on the basis of the written report, which denied appellant and the court the opportunity to observe the accusers' demeanor. (Kentron D., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 1393.) On the counts for which the accusing probation offices were not present, there was no indication that anyone other than Officer Manning prepared any of the paragraphs constituting the counts in the petition, and therefore the report appeared to consist of multiple hearsay. (Ibid.) Furthermore, no foundation was established for the admission of this hearsay evidence. Therefore, the hearsay evidence on these counts lacked indicia of reliability. (Ibid.)