Mendocino County Department of Social Services v. S.W.
9 Cal. App. 5th 339
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In May 2015 Mendocino County DHS filed a Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 petition regarding three daughters (Minors); Mother and Minors are enrolled tribal members and the case was governed by ICWA. Father was located in Florida and requested counsel and services.
- Father had a long history of substance abuse and prior felony convictions; he had not seen or spoken with the children for years. The juvenile court sustained an allegation that Father’s criminal/drug history severely impaired his ability to care for the children.
- The Department initially issued a vague case plan that required Father to identify services himself; the court ordered a more specific out-of-state plan and directed inclusion of drug‑testing, housing assessment, parenting, and any needed domestic‑violence assessment.
- Over several months the Department belatedly provided an updated case plan with two Florida program referrals and contact numbers, but the plan lacked meaningful detail about program content, sobriety treatment, drug testing, and housing services. Father received only one supervised telephone visit with two of the minors during the six‑month period and did not participate in services prior to the six‑month review.
- At the six‑month review the juvenile court found reasonable reunification services had been provided and that active efforts under ICWA were made; Father appealed those findings.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable reunification services were provided | Services were inadequate: plan delayed, lacked required substance‑abuse, housing, testing, and meaningful visitation | Delay excused by out‑of‑state location and reassignment of social worker; Father was not cooperative | Reversed — no substantial evidence supports finding of reasonable services |
| Whether Department made active efforts under ICWA to prevent breakup of Indian family | Active‑efforts finding tied to reasonable‑services failure; inadequate efforts mean active efforts not shown | Department argued it made efforts despite difficulties and reassignment | Reversed as tied to inadequate reunification services finding |
| Adequacy of visitation (telephone) | Weekly calls promised but only one phone visit occurred; visitation is critical to reunification | Father failed to stay in contact; out‑of‑state logistics complicated scheduling | Court found provision of only one call over six months was unreasonable |
| Whether Father’s nonparticipation excuses Department’s failures | Father’s lack of participation does not excuse Department’s earlier failures or delays | Services are voluntary and Father bears responsibility for engaging once referred | Court held Father’s nonparticipation did not excuse Department’s failure to provide timely, tailored services |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.C., 212 Cal.App.4th 323 (discussing required scope and tailoring of reunification services)
- In re T.G., 188 Cal.App.4th 687 (visitation as critical component; standard for reasonable services)
- Christopher D. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal.App.4th 60 (reasonable services inadequate where visits were minimal)
- In re Taylor J., 223 Cal.App.4th 1446 (agency must continue efforts to bring parent into compliance)
- Amanda H. v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 1340 (social worker’s duty to evaluate service providers and inform the court)
- In re Jonathan R., 211 Cal.App.3d 1214 (reunification services are voluntary but agency obligations remain)
- In re Michael S., 188 Cal.App.3d 1448 (limitations on forcing services on an unwilling parent)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (remand discretion when services reversal occurs)
- Melinda K. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal.App.4th 1147 (parent not required to repeatedly complain to trigger agency obligations)
Disposition: The juvenile court’s findings that reasonable reunification services were provided and that active efforts were made under ICWA were reversed; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.