12 Cal.App.5th 994
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- A.J., a father deported to Mexico after a 2011 domestic violence arrest, sought custody and reunification services for his three children who entered dependency proceedings in October 2015 after the mother, R.G., was detained for extreme intoxication and related charges.
- The juvenile court ordered reunification services for the mother but initially did not order services for A.J.; after A.J. contacted the Agency and later requested services, the court ordered a case plan for him and ordered supervised border visits.
- The Agency referred A.J. to DIF (a Mexican social services agency) for home evaluation, parenting education, and domestic-violence counseling, but DIF could not locate appropriate domestic-violence groups and had not yet referred him to parenting classes; visitation at the border was arranged inconsistently.
- At the 12-month review, the Agency recommended returning the children to the mother under family maintenance and offering discretionary services to A.J.; the Agency acknowledged it had not provided robust services to A.J. in Mexico.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been offered or provided to both parents, placed the children with the mother under family maintenance, and authorized continued discretionary services for A.J.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the reasonable-services finding as to A.J., holding the record did not show the Agency offered or provided the court-ordered reunification services to the deported father during the review period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency offered or provided reasonable reunification services to A.J. | Agency: services were reasonable under the circumstances; discretionary services in Mexico and DIF referrals sufficed | A.J.: Agency failed to provide the court-ordered services while he was in Mexico; he wanted services and custody | Reversed as to A.J.: substantial evidence did not support the reasonable-services finding; Agency failed to provide court-ordered services to deported father |
| Whether A.J.'s temporary statement declining services justified truncating services | Agency/court: A.J. briefly said he did not want reunification, undermining commitment | A.J.: any waiver was uninformed and later revoked; statutory safeguards required a formal waiver | Court: his momentary statement did not justify denying services; he later requested services and court had ordered them |
| Whether deportation absolves Agency of its duty to provide services | Agency/court: deportation made providing services more difficult and justified limited efforts | A.J.: deportation does not excuse Agency from attempting to provide or arrange services abroad | Court: deportation does not relieve Agency of its duty; statute contemplates assisting deported parents, possibly with extended services |
| Whether error was harmless | Agency: discretionary services now available make any error harmless | A.J.: failure to provide services is not harmless; remedy is additional reunification time | Court: harmless-error analysis inapplicable; statutory scheme requires relief (reversal) and potential additional reunification period as remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Riva M., 235 Cal.App.3d 403 (1991) (agency must identify problems, offer remedial services, maintain contact, and reasonably assist parents)
- In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (1991) (reasonableness standard — not perfection, but reasonable under the circumstances)
- In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2002) (no automatic loss of parental rights from incarceration — similar principle rejecting "go to jail, lose your child" rule)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (1993) (dependency statutory scheme protects parents' legitimate interests; services and procedures are substantive)
- In re Alanna A., 135 Cal.App.4th 555 (2005) (importance of reunification services in dependency proceedings)
- In re D.C.D., 629 Pa. 325 (2014) (interpreting federal law, remedy for agency failure to provide services is court finding agency failed to make reasonable efforts)