D.T. v. Superior Court
241 Cal. App. 4th 1017
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother (single parent) has five children; three older children were the subject of long-running dependency proceedings beginning in 2004 with repeated removals, services, and a failed guardianship; the family has chronic problems involving Mother’s substance abuse, mental illness, and abusive relationships.
- Mother received extensive child-welfare services over ~11 years, including reunification and family maintenance services (31 months of family maintenance from March 2012–Nov 2014), residential treatment in early 2015, and intermittent therapy; participation was sporadic and inconsistent.
- Supplemental petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code § 387) were filed after events in late 2014 (relapse, drug use in home, domestic violence, neglect, truancy). The juvenile court removed the children and denied further reunification services under § 361.5(b)(10), then set a § 366.26 permanency hearing.
- Mother petitioned for extraordinary relief (writ) seeking reversal of the denial of reunification services and to stay the § 366.26 hearing; the appellate court stayed the hearing to consider briefing.
- The appellate court concluded the juvenile court applied the wrong statutory bypass provision (§ 361.5(b)(10)) but that (1) Mother was not entitled to further services under § 361.5(a) in any event and (2) even under the correct post-permanency standard (§ 366.3(f)) denial of additional services was within the court’s discretion and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court properly denied further reunification services under § 361.5(b)(10) | Mother: she has made and continues to make reasonable efforts since Nov 2014 and reunification services should be ordered | Agency: § 361.5(b)(10) bypass analysis inapplicable because Mother had already exhausted services under § 361.5(a); no entitlement to new services | Court: juvenile court used wrong statute (§ 361.5(b)(10)) but error harmless; denial stands because Mother was not entitled to services under § 361.5(a) |
| Whether post‑permanency reunification analysis should follow § 366.3(f) (best‑alternative/ burden on parent) | Mother: relief not briefed in detail, implicitly asks for more services as in G.L. | Agency: court’s only option was to set § 366.26 hearing; post‑permanency services unavailable | Court: § 366.3(f) is the proper post‑permanency standard to borrow; parent must prove by preponderance that reunification is the best alternative, but here facts show implicit rejection of that result—no remand needed |
| Whether substantial evidence supported denial of further services | Mother: recent progress (Epiphany program, restraining order) shows changed circumstances | Agency/children: Mother’s participation was sporadic, long history of relapse, mental health instability, children need permanency; reunification would be detrimental | Held: substantial evidence supports findings that return would be detrimental and that further services would not be in children’s best interests |
| Whether remand required because wrong statute applied | Mother: requested relief (general) | Agency: any error is harmless given record and stage of case | Held: no remand; erroneous statutory reference harmless and § 366.26 hearing should proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.L., 222 Cal.App.4th 1153 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses bypass and best‑interest discretion under § 361.5)
- Rosa S. v. Superior Court, 100 Cal.App.4th 1181 (Cal. Ct. App.) (parent entitled to new reunification period when prior dependency dismissed and new § 300 filed)
- Carolyn R. v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal. Ct. App.) (method for applying chronological stage/reunification entitlement when supplemental petitions are filed)
- In re R.N., 178 Cal.App.4th 557 (Cal. Ct. App.) (post‑permanency borrowing of § 366.3(f) standard to assess reunification as best alternative)
- G.W., 173 Cal.App.4th 1428 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses timing and court options when supplemental petitions follow custody return within the 12–18 month period)