M.C. v. Superior Court of Del Norte County
3 Cal. App. 5th 838
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Two children (ages 5 and 11) were removed from Mother after police found drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, and severe hoarding in her home; Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, and marijuana and was arrested.
- The Department filed a section 300 juvenile dependency petition and the court ordered services (parenting education, drug screening, substance abuse assessment/treatment) and supervised visitation.
- Mother largely failed to engage in services, maintained she was a medical marijuana user, and later pled guilty to charges that resulted in an 16–18 month state prison sentence.
- At the six-month review hearing the Department recommended termination of reunification services because Mother would be incarcerated past the review period; the juvenile court terminated services and set a section 366.26 permanency hearing.
- Mother sought writ relief arguing she was statutorily entitled to 12 months of reunification services and the period could be shortened only via a section 388 petition or under limited circumstances in section 361.5(a)(2).
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, concluding the juvenile court erred by terminating services before 12 months without following the procedures of section 388 or making the specific clear-and-convincing findings authorized by section 361.5(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent of a child 3+ years is entitled to a full 12 months of reunification services before termination | Mother: 12 months is mandatory except where section 361.5(a)(2) applies or where a section 388 petition justifies earlier termination | Dept: Juvenile courts retain inherent discretion to terminate services earlier; statutory periods are not minimums (citing Aryanna C., Derrick S.) | Court: 12-month period is mandatory under amended statutes; early termination only via section 388 or under the narrow section 361.5(a)(2) exceptions |
| Whether Mother was disentitled from appellate relief because of her conduct | Dept: Disentitlement doctrine bars relief for appellants who frustrate court’s processes | Mother: Did not engage in egregious conduct that would justify disentitlement; made some attempts to comply | Court: Disentitlement inapplicable; Mother’s conduct did not rise to the requisite egregious level |
| Whether pre-2008 caselaw (Aryanna C., Derrick S.) allows broad judicial discretion to cut short reunification periods | Dept: Relies on Aryanna C. and Derrick S. to justify early termination absent section 388 | Mother: Legislature amended sections 361.5 and 388 in 2008 to limit that discretion and create minimum reunification periods | Court: 2008 amendments overruled that broad discretion; Aryanna C. and Derrick S. limited by statute and are not controlling |
| Whether the juvenile court’s error was harmless here | Dept: Any error was harmless given Mother’s lack of engagement and incarceration | Mother: Court made no section 388 petition nor did it make the clear-and-convincing findings required by section 361.5(a)(2) | Court: Error not harmless—trial court applied the wrong legal standard and made no required findings under section 361.5(a)(2); remanded by writ to vacate termination order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aryanna C., 132 Cal.App.4th 1234 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held juvenile court could terminate reunification services before statutory period in certain circumstances)
- In re Derrick S., 156 Cal.App.4th 436 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applied Aryanna C. reasoning to children over three; described statutory timeframes as defaults)
- In re J.P., 229 Cal.App.4th 108 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussed interaction of 361.5 and 388 and limits on early termination)
- In re Katelynn Y., 209 Cal.App.4th 871 (Cal. Ct. App.) (addressed post-amendment statutory scheme and section 388 process)
- In re Z.K., 201 Cal.App.4th 51 (Cal. Ct. App.) (explained disentitlement doctrine applies only in extreme cases)
- In re David H., 33 Cal.App.4th 368 (Cal. Ct. App.) (earlier decision treating statutory periods as entitlement in certain contexts)
- Sheila S. v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App.) (pre-Aryanna decision addressing use of section 388 to shorten reunification period)