In re N.K. CA5, F082037

Newborn N.K. was detained days after birth after mother (S.K.) took him out of a maternity facility unsupervised while he had jaundice; agency sought protective custody given mother’s child-welfare history.
Mother has two prior dependency cases: one child suffered physical abuse leading to termination of reunification; parental rights to one half‑sibling were later terminated; mother had substance‑abuse and domestic‑violence history.
Father (B.M.) was later established as the presumed father, had a suitable home, passed background checks, and N.K. was placed with him.
Agency recommended family maintenance services for father and recommended not providing services to mother; court adjudged N.K. dependent, placed him with father, ordered services to father only, and denied services to mother.
Mother appealed, arguing the juvenile court erred by declining to provide her services under Welfare & Institutions Code § 361.2(b)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by declining to order services to mother under § 361.2(b)(3) when the child was placed with the previously noncustodial parent	Agency: Court properly exercised discretion to provide services only to father because he could provide a safe, stable home and mother had poor history with services	S.K.: Court should have ordered services to mother (as a “backup”) under § 361.2(b)(3) to allow her a chance to regain custody	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: court reasonably found mother’s prior failures, limited progress, weak bond, and father’s stable placement justified denying services to mother

In re Erika W., 28 Cal. App. 4th 470 (1994) (§ 361.2(b)(3) services facilitate permanent parental custody by one parent; court may provide services only to noncustodial parent if other cannot provide safe home)
In re A.C., 169 Cal. App. 4th 636 (2008) (discussion of § 361.2’s purpose and application)
In re Gabriel L., 172 Cal. App. 4th 644 (2009) (juvenile court has broad discretion in dispositional orders)
In re Jaden E., 229 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (2014) (services under § 361.2(b)(3) are discretionary)
In re Nada R., 89 Cal. App. 4th 1166 (2001) (standard of review for dispositional discretion)
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal. 4th 295 (1994) (abuse of discretion standard and review principles)
Jennifer S. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App. 5th 1113 (2017) (factors for evaluating whether reunification services are in child’s best interest)