Alameda County Social Services Agency v. T.G.
3 Cal. App. 5th 557
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- 14-year-old J.E. was removed after running away; dependency petition alleged serious behavioral problems (suicidal ideation, self-harm, fire-setting) and the family history included an incident where J.E. molested her younger sister.
- The juvenile court ordered reunification services for mother and child; case plan required a psychological evaluation and individual/family therapy.
- Over 18 months the family received generalized individual and family therapy; the agency never completed a full psychological evaluation or assessed whether sexual-offender specific treatment for J.E. was needed.
- The younger sister continued to be highly traumatized and was frequently hospitalized; mother resisted returning J.E. because the younger child remained a “trigger.”
- At the 18-month review the court found the agency had not provided reasonable reunification services tailored to the core impediment (J.E.’s sexualized behavior), continued the review and extended reunification services up to 24 months under Welfare & Institutions Code §352. The agency appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: the agency’s generalized services were not reasonably tailored to the family’s specific needs, and the court retained discretion under §352 to extend services despite statutory amendments to other provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could continue the 18-month hearing and extend reunification services to 24 months under §352 despite post-2009 statutory amendments | Agency: amendments to §361.5 and §366.22 limit extensions to the statutory categories; court lacked authority to extend under §352 beyond those limits | Mother: §352 still permits continuance for good cause (e.g., failure to provide reasonable services); amendments did not restrict §352 discretion | Held: Court retained §352 discretion to continue and extend services upon good cause; amendments did not abrogate that discretion |
| Whether the agency provided reasonable, adequately tailored reunification services | Agency: it provided substantial services (therapy, referrals) and complied with the case plan | Mother: services were generalized and failed to assess or address the core impediment (possible sexual-offender treatment; no full psychological evaluation) | Held: Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that services were not reasonably tailored; agency failed to provide required assessment and targeted services |
| Whether the court exceeded its authority by directing specific assessments or therapy | Agency: court improperly micromanaged treatment choices and directed specific therapy types | Mother: court permissibly required evaluation and tailored services to address reunification barriers | Held: Court did not exceed authority; ordering completion of the psychological evaluation and services consistent with its results was within the court’s power to ensure reasonable reunification efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- Mark N. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 996 (discusses 18-month hearing as critical juncture and factors for continuance under §352)
- Denny H. v. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App.4th 1501 (juvenile court may extend services for extraordinary external factors preventing participation)
- In re Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (discusses extensions in special-needs contexts)
- San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court, 227 Cal.App.4th 215 (court’s analysis of §366.22 findings and reasonable services; distinguishing dicta addressed)
- In re Riva M., 235 Cal.App.3d 403 (criteria for showing reasonable services were provided)
- Robin V. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.4th 1158 (reasonableness of reunification efforts judged by case circumstances)
- David B. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (reunification services must be tailored to family needs)
- In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (standard for reasonableness of services: reasonable under the circumstances)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 19 Cal.4th 1182 (opinions are not authority for propositions not considered)
- In re Raymond G., 230 Cal.App.3d 964 (case-not-moot doctrine: issues capable of repetition yet evading review)