40 Cal.App.5th 19
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother and Father have two children at issue: I. (6) and Is. (8); this was their third juvenile dependency involving the same parents and similar allegations of neglect/domestic violence.
- I. and Is. were removed together in 2015, returned, then removed again in 2017; reunification services were terminated for the parent who previously had custody in each earlier dependency.
- In the 2018 dependency (third), CFS recommended bypassing reunification services under Welfare & Institutions Code § 361.5(b)(10) for all three children; the juvenile court bypassed services for A.A., but concluded § 361.5(b)(10) did not apply to I. and Is., treating them as the "same child," and ordered reunification services for I. and Is.’s parents.
- Minors’ counsel (and CFS on appeal) argued the juvenile court erred: either I. and Is. should be treated as separate siblings for § 361.5(b)(10) purposes or the provision should apply to the same child(s) removed previously.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, concluded § 361.5(b)(10) can apply to the same child or same children, reversed the juvenile court, and remanded with directions to deny further reunification services for I. and Is. and set a permanency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5(b)(10) may be applied when the prior termination of reunification services concerned the same child(s) (not merely a sibling or half-sibling). | Minors/CFS: § 361.5(b)(10) should bar reunification here — I. and Is. either qualify as separate siblings or, if treated as the same children, the provision should still apply (Gabriel K. reasoning). | Parents/Juvenile court: the statute’s plain language covers only prior termination for "siblings or half siblings," so it does not apply when the prior termination concerned the same child; literal reading avoids extending the statute. | The court held § 361.5(b)(10) can apply to the same child or same children; reversed the juvenile court’s finding of inapplicability and directed denial of reunification services for I. and Is. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gabriel K. v. Superior Court, 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (2012) (construed § 361.5(b)(10) to apply to the same child to avoid absurd/unintended results and effectuate legislative intent)
- In re B.L., 204 Cal.App.4th 1111 (2012) (held statute’s plain language limited to prior termination for siblings/half-siblings and declined to apply to the same child)
- J.A. v. Superior Court, 214 Cal.App.4th 279 (2013) (agreed with B.L.; refused to extend § 361.5(b)(10) to the same child where language is unambiguous)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (2001) (Supreme Court: guide to purposive construction; legislative intent supports restricting unnecessary reunification when prior attempts failed)
- In re Albert T., 144 Cal.App.4th 207 (2006) (describes the two elements required to invoke § 361.5(b)(10): prior failure to reunify with sibling/half-sibling and lack of subsequent reasonable efforts)
- Jennifer S. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.5th 1113 (2017) (discusses bypass provisions and policy favoring timely permanency over futile reunification efforts)