69 Cal.App.5th 1133
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- A.G., a 16-year-old, was removed from parental custody in Jan 2020 after findings that Father suffered severe mental-health symptoms (auditory hallucinations, delusions, aggression) and Mother had significant mental-health, substance, and criminal-history issues.
- The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction, ordered reunification services for both parents, and required a section 730 psychological evaluation of Father.
- At 6‑ and 12‑month reviews the court found reunification services had been offered, parents made minimal-to-moderate progress, and continued services with the prospect of return within six months.
- Father later participated in some services and completed the section 730 evaluation showing significant psychiatric problems; the 18‑month hearing was continued to June 2021.
- At the 18‑month hearing the court found returning A.G. would pose a substantial risk and—though it found SSA had not provided reasonable services in the most recent period—terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 permanency hearing because subdivision (b) of section 366.22 did not apply and further services were not in A.G.’s best interest.
- Parents filed writ petitions; the Court of Appeal denied them and upheld the termination and setting of the §366.26 hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could terminate reunification services at the 18‑month review despite finding recent services unreasonable | Parents: the court should continue services because SSA failed to provide reasonable services in the most recent review period | SSA/juvenile court: §366.22(a)(3) requires termination and setting of §366.26 when (b) does not apply; lack of recent reasonable services does not bar setting §366.26 here | Court: Affirmed termination; subdivision (b) inapplicable, so court properly set §366.26 despite prior finding of unreasonable services |
| Whether the court should have extended reunification services under §366.22(b) / §361.5 (continuance/extension up to 24 months) | Father: there was a substantial probability A.G. could be returned with additional services; request for continuance/extension | SSA/juvenile court: subdivision (b) is narrowly limited to specific categories (minor/ dependent parents, parents in court‑ordered substance programs, recently discharged from confinement); parents do not fit those categories | Court: Denied extension; subdivision (b) does not apply, so court lacked authority to extend services beyond 18 months in this case |
| Whether denial of a continuance under §352 or refusal to continue services violated due process or was an abuse of discretion | Father: denial of continuance was unfair and denied due process; additional time could lead to reunification | SSA/juvenile court: §352 requires weighing child’s need for prompt resolution; parents had inconsistent contact and limited progress over 18 months, so further delay would harm child | Court: No due process violation and no abuse of discretion; court reasonably concluded further services were not in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Earl L. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.4th 1490 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (holding inadequate recent services do not bar setting §366.26 where §366.22(b) is inapplicable)
- San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court, 227 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (same: court must set §366.26 at 18 months when §366.22(b) factors are absent)
- N.M. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.App.5th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (explaining §366.22(a)(3) is not conditioned on a reasonable‑services finding when §366.22(b) does not apply)
- In re M.F., 32 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (collecting authority and discussing split over whether lack of reasonable services can allow extending reunification beyond 18 months)
- In re Jaden E., 229 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (overview of reunification statutory scheme and timelines)
- In re D.N., 56 Cal.App.5th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (noting §352 can permit continuance beyond statutory limits in extraordinary circumstances)