Jennifer S. v. Superior Court, A151627

Background

Infant K.S. was detained shortly after birth (Jan 2017) after mother tested positive for methamphetamines; the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b), (j).
Both parents have long histories of substance abuse and prior dependency proceedings that resulted in termination of parental rights as to multiple older children (mother: four prior children; father: three prior children).
The juvenile court found both parents had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to prior removals and, relying on §361.5(b)(10) and (b)(11), denied reunification services and set a §366.26 permanency hearing.
Mother had recently engaged in outpatient treatment (began April 2017), produced multiple negative tests, attended counseling, and visited appropriately; father began outpatient treatment in late May 2017, had limited drug-testing for the Agency, but a long criminal/arrest history and recent arrests up to 2016.
The court rejected parents’ claims of changed behavior (noting mother’s late engagement and credibility issues, and father’s minimal recent efforts and ongoing criminal history) and found reunification not in the child’s best interest.
Petitioners sought writ relief; the Court of Appeal denied the petitions, finding substantial evidence supported bypass under §361.5(b)(10) and the court’s best-interest refusal to order services.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reunification services could be denied under §361.5(b)(10) because parents failed to make reasonable efforts after prior terminations	Parents: recent treatment efforts (mother's negative tests, treatment, visits; father's treatment enrollment) show reasonable efforts	Agency/juvenile court: prior terminations + long histories of substance abuse/criminality and only very recent, limited engagement show lack of reasonable efforts	Court: Denial upheld — substantial evidence supports bypass under §361.5(b)(10) for both parents
Whether the Agency needed more definitive prior-dependency records to prove basis for bypass as to father	Father: Agency failed to present enough detail about prior proceedings so bypass was unsupported	Agency: petitions and dispositional history show prior orders and failures to reunify; additional circumstantial evidence of recidivism	Court: Although record thin on some prior-documents, evidence was sufficient to support bypass for father
Whether mother was entitled to reunification under a best-interest exception (§361.5(c)) despite bypass eligibility	Mother: bond with infant, consistent visitation, and recent engagement show reunification is in child’s best interest	Juvenile court: infant never parented by mother, mother’s late/limited progress and credibility problems, child’s need for prompt permanency	Court: Best-interest exception rejected — no abuse of discretion in finding reunification not in K.S.’s best interest
Standard of review for bypass and best-interest determinations	Parents: challenge factual findings	Respondent: decisions turn on substantial-evidence and abuse-of-discretion standards	Court: Applied substantial-evidence review for bypass findings and abuse-of-discretion for best-interest ruling; both upheld

Key Cases Cited

In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (recognizing bypass when parents unlikely to benefit from reunification)
Renee J. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 1450 (reasonable efforts not equivalent to cure; must be more than half‑hearted)
Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 87 (standard of review and evidentiary obligations for bypass findings)
In re G.L., 222 Cal.App.4th 1153 (best-interest exception may apply where parent has primary early caregiving and meaningful, timely change)
R.T. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 908 (courts may consider duration/extent/context of parental efforts in assessing reasonableness)
William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (factors for best‑interest analysis: current efforts, history, parent‑child bond, child’s need for stability)