L.H. v. Super. Ct. CA1/3, A164376

In August 2021 Contra Costa CFS removed seven‑year‑old K.H., alleging mother’s untreated serious mental illness placed him at risk and noting mother previously failed to reunify with an older half‑sibling (D.M.), whose parental rights were terminated in 2007.
K.H. was placed with his maternal grandmother (the adoptive parent of D.M.); mother was given supervised visits and ordered to be offered drug testing, parenting education, and mental‑health assessment.
The agency recommended denial (bypass) of reunification services under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5(b)(10) & (b)(11) because mother’s prior reunification failed and she had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to that removal.
Evidence at the January 13, 2022 contested disposition hearing: prior case history showing service noncompliance and parental‑rights termination; agency attempts to engage mother in services in 2021; mother’s denial of any mental‑health problems; reports of mother hearing voices and past physical abuse of the infant half‑sibling; some positive supervised visits but episodes where mother responded to internal stimuli and scared the child.
The juvenile court found the statutory bypass applied, determined by clear and convincing evidence that reunification would not be in K.H.’s best interest, denied reunification services, and set a § 366.26 permanency hearing. Mother sought extraordinary writ relief and a temporary stay of the § 366.26 hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports finding mother did not make reasonable efforts to address the problems that led to D.M.’s removal (§361.5(b)(10)/(11))	Mother: Insufficient proof about the prior case; long time lapse; agency failed to produce earlier records so court could not conclude she failed to make reasonable efforts	Agency: Prior termination + documentary history + multiple recent attempts to engage mother, who denied need for services and refused to participate	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports the finding; mother could have introduced contrary evidence at the hearing
Whether reunification should be ordered despite bypass (best‑interest finding required by §361.5(c)(2))	Mother: Short time to attempt reunification; strong parent‑child bond; services focused on mental health could succeed; child had family placements	Agency: Mother refuses services and denies mental‑health needs; child has behavioral symptoms and needs stability; reunification not reasonably possible	Court: Affirmed denial of services — juvenile court did not abuse discretion; reunification not shown to be in child’s best interest
Request for temporary stay of the §366.26 hearing	Mother: Stay needed pending writ resolution	Agency: Opposed	Court of Appeal: Denied as moot (writ denied on merits)

In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (legislative assumption that reunification need not be offered after prior termination unless parent proves by clear and convincing evidence it is in the child's best interest)
Jennifer S. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.5th 1113 (standard for evaluating whether a parent made reasonable efforts to address prior removal problems)
Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (standard of review and burden for clear and convincing findings)
In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (reunification services are voluntary and cannot be forced on an unwilling parent)
In re Michael S., 188 Cal.App.3d 1448 (court not required to keep dependency cases ‘on hold’ when parent will not accept services)
Renee J. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 1450 (requirement of a reasonable basis to conclude reunification is possible before ordering services)