Melissa R. v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48

Mother addict with long history; overcame during pregnancy with C.R., later relapsed in 2011.
C.R. detained Oct 2011 after Mother's hospitalization for methamphetamine–related endocarditis.
Half sibling M.R. previously removed in Wisconsin; Wisconsin case not under California §361.
Agency initially recommended reunification; ultimately recommended denial based on lack of reunification with half-sibling and treatment noncompliance.
Dispositional hearing (Mar 15, 2012) denied reunification services under §361.5(b)(10); writ petition granted to reconsider.
Court directs new dispositional hearing after considering new evidence or changed circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §361.5(b)(10) applies when sibling removal occurred outside California	Mother argues Wisconsin removal not under §361.	Agency argues the provision can apply beyond state lines.	No; §361.5(b)(10) unambiguously applies only to removals under §361.
Whether the trial court erred in relying on Wisconsin proceedings to deny reunification	Mother contends Wisconsin proceedings are not controlling under the California statute.	Agency contends prior removal supports bypass.	The court erred; Wisconsin removal cannot satisfy §361.5(b)(10) as written.

In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (parental interest in reunification precedes child’s need for permanency at dispositional set‑up)
Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal. 1993) (standard of removal proof and need for reunification services)
In re Joshua M., 66 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. App. 1998) (bypass provisions honored; reunification defenses)
In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. App. 1998) (recidivism rationale for bypass provision)
In re David, 202 Cal.App.4th 675 (Cal. App. 2012) (statutory construction; plain language governs)
In re B.L., 204 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Cal. App. 2012) (siblings or half siblings language in §361.5(b)(10))