In re J.P.
B277756
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Father (A.S.), a Burmese/Karen speaker, has a long history of alcohol abuse; two daughters were detained after reports father drank daily and neglected them.
- DCFS detained the children, filed a section 300 petition, and the juvenile court ordered reunification services and monitored visitation.
- DCFS reported it could not locate alcohol-treatment, 12-step, or parenting programs in Burmese; communication attempts used friends and translation apps; on-demand drug testing was arranged.
- At disposition the court ordered father to complete a full alcohol program with aftercare, a 12-step program (with sponsor), and parenting classes, directing DCFS to assist in locating Burmese-language or translated programs.
- Father appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by ordering services he could not realistically access because of his limited English. Subsequent proceedings altered custody and case-plan details but did not resolve the core language-access issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispositional order requiring alcohol treatment, 12-step, and parenting programs was an abuse of discretion when father could not understand English-language services | The court’s reunification order was within discretion because father’s serious alcohol problem justified treatment orders | Orders were unlawful because DCFS and the court knew services in Burmese were unavailable, making compliance impossible and the plan doomed to fail | Reversed: imposing court-ordered programs that father could not access due to language was an abuse of discretion; remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether the appeal was moot given later minute orders (return/home-of-parents and modified case plan) | Appeal moot because later orders returned children and modified plan to on-demand testing, one requested remedy | Not moot: later orders subsequently changed (new petitions, loss of custody) and father still seeks language-access remedies | Denied DCFS’s mootness motion; appeal adjudicable because later proceedings did not eliminate need for review |
| Whether appellate court should directly order provision of a Burmese interpreter or specific services | DCFS implied the trial court’s direction to "assist" was sufficient and issues about reasonable services can be litigated at review hearings | Father asked the appellate court to require Burmese services, a translator, or eliminate impossible requirements | Court declined to mandate specific remedies on appeal; remanded to the juvenile court to reconsider disposition and any termination order in light of this opinion, but encouraged providing language access where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.C., 243 Cal.App.4th 41 (discretionary review of dispositional reunification orders)
- In re Daniel B., 231 Cal.App.4th 663 (reunification plans must be individualized and reasonably designed to eliminate conditions causing dependency)
- In re Dino E., 6 Cal.App.4th 1768 (courts must attempt to provide suitable services despite difficulties)
- In re T.G., 188 Cal.App.4th 687 (standard of review for findings about reasonable services at review hearings)
- Amanda H. v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 1340 (substantial-evidence review for services-provision findings)
- In re Natalie A., 243 Cal.App.4th 178 (urine-dilute test characterization and its legal effect)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process limits on state termination of parental rights)