199 Cal. App. 4th 1490
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- SSA filed a petition alleging C.L. came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction based on domestic violence and parental alcohol abuse.
- C.L. was placed with the paternal grandmother, then moved to foster care; both parents were engaged with reunification services.
- At six months, father remained incarcerated; mother progressed moderately while attending programs and visiting C.L.
- At 12 months, the court continued reunification with mother and an enhancement plan for father; SSA recommended enhancement for father but mother remained primary caregiver due to father’s incarceration.
- Mother relapsed in mid-2010, was jailed briefly, and SSA again recommended termination of reunification services for both parents; C.L. remained with foster parents.
- At the 18-month review, the court found SSA had not provided reasonable services to father during Jan–June 2011, but declined to extend reunification and set a Section 366.26 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in not extending reunification services beyond 18 months. | Father contends SSA inadequately served him during the current period. | SSA argues overall services were reasonable or that extending was not in child’s best interests. | No error; no substantial probability father would benefit from further services. |
| Whether section 366.22(b) requires a clear and convincing finding of reasonable services for continued extension. | Father asserts a failure to show a clear and convincing reasonable services finding for extension. | Court may continue only if substantial progress exists; here no significant progress by father. | The court did not err; extension was not warranted given lack of significant progress and no clear error in the analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Precious J., 42 Cal.App.4th 1463 (Cal. App. 1996) (family preservation priority; reasonable services required)
- In re Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (Cal. App. 1995) (reasonable reunification services; tailored plans)
- In re Monica C., 31 Cal.App.4th 296 (Cal. App. 1994) (agency cannot delegate service identification to incarcerated parent)
- Mark N. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 996 (Cal. App. 1998) (limits on extending reunification; relevance when services not provided throughout period)
- In re Dino E., 6 Cal.App.4th 1768 (Cal. App. 1992) (need for services designed to remedy problems and proper supervision)
- LA County Dept. of Children &. Services v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 1088 (Cal. App. 1997) (parent’s lack of participation cannot delay agency duties)