Christopher D. v. Superior Court
210 Cal. App. 4th 60
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Parents Christopher D. and Jade H. are Sadie D.'s guardians; Sadie removed in Aug 2011 due to parental drug use and neglect observed in the home.
- Detention order placed Sadie with paternal grandparents; initial plan required Christopher to have liberal supervised visitation post-release and contact visits while incarcerated.
- Christopher was incarcerated Aug–Dec 2011; no in-person visits occurred during that period; prison telephone calls with Sadie were arranged but inconsistent.
- Dec 2011–Mar 2012: Christopher released to Crash residential treatment; visits with Sadie limited to two, despite weekly visitation requirement; social worker cited caseload and transportation as barriers.
- June 14, 2012 six-month review: court found reasonable visitation during incarceration but not during Crash period; reunification services terminated and a section 366.26 hearing set; court retained some visitation post-termination.
- Petition granted to issue writ directing remand to resume six-month status with proper reunification services; stay denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency provided reasonable visitation during incarceration | Christopher argues no meaningful visits occurred while incarcerated | Agency contends visitation allowed under court order but restricted by facility rules | Yes, but limited by detainee setting; substantial evidence supports reasonable incarceration visitation despite limits. |
| Whether the Agency provided reasonable visitation during Crash program | Agency failed to provide required weekly visits during Crash | Caseload and distance justified limited visits | No substantial evidence of reasonable visitation during Crash; error warranting relief. |
| Whether failure to provide visitation during Crash period was harmless | Post-termination visitation cannot cure earlier failure to provide services | Additional post-termination visitation mitigates error | Harmlessness rejected; writ granted to reinstate reunification services. |
| Whether the court properly terminated reunification services given visitation deficiencies | Lack of substantial visitation undermines progress | Court balanced stability vs. parental issues; termination appropriate | Court abused discretion by terminating services given visitation gaps. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (Cal. App. 1995) (public policy favoring family reunification; good faith effort required)
- Brittany S., 17 Cal.App.4th 1399 (Cal. App. 1993) (visitation with incarcerated parent must be provided beyond age alone considerations)
- Dino E., 6 Cal.App.4th 1768 (Cal. App. 1992) (adequacy of reunification efforts judged under circumstances of case)
- Dylan T., 65 Cal.App.4th 765 (Cal. App. 1998) (visitation for incarcerated parent; detriment to child guiding denial or allowance)