5 Cal. App. 5th 796
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Contra Costa County filed dependency petitions after Mother physically injured P.W. and exhibited untreated mental-health problems; both children were removed and placed in foster care.
- Juvenile court sustained allegations, ordered removal, and provided Mother supervised visitation and a reunification plan requiring psychological evaluation, counseling, parenting/anger-management programs, therapy, and drug testing.
- At six- and 12-month reviews the court found reasonable services had been offered, Mother made some progress (therapy, substance program, parenting classes), but the children largely refused visits and still feared Mother.
- At the 18-month permanency review the Bureau recommended terminating reunification services; two family-therapy sessions in February were emotionally harmful to M.W., and Mother later missed many drug tests and therapy sessions.
- The court found returning the children would pose a substantial risk, concluded further reunification was not in the children’s best interests, found reasonable services had been offered, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Bureau/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may set a §366.26 hearing at the 18‑month review absent a clear‑and‑convincing finding that reasonable reunification services were provided | Mother: Rule 5.708(m) requires clear‑and‑convincing finding of reasonable services before setting a §366.26 hearing | Bureau/Court: Statute §366.22 governs; rule conflicts with statute; reasonable‑services finding is not a precondition to setting §366.26 unless the parent seeks a six‑month continuance under §366.22(b) | Court: A §366.26 hearing may be set at the 18‑month review without that heightened finding; rule 5.708(m) conflicts with §366.22 and cannot override statute |
| Whether Mother was denied a right to additional reunification because services were allegedly not reasonable | Mother: Services (esp. mental‑health referrals) were inadequate and she raised the issue at the 18‑month hearing | Bureau/Court: Mother failed to timely object to services earlier; she did not show entitlement to the limited §366.22(b) continuance or that additional services were in children’s best interests | Court: Mother’s challenge was untimely and, in any event, she was not entitled to a continuance; court properly terminated reunification services |
Key Cases Cited
- Earl L. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.4th 1490 (2011) (explains limited circumstances under §366.22(b) when continuance and heightened reasonable‑services finding are required)
- Denny H. v. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App.4th 1501 (2005) (discusses legislative elimination of reasonable‑services precondition at 18‑month review)
- Mark N. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 996 (1998) (historical discussion of statutory amendment removing reasonable‑services precondition)
- In re Lorenzo C., 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 (1997) (failure to timely object in juvenile court forfeits appellate challenge)
- In re Julie S., 48 Cal.App.4th 988 (1996) (procedural authority regarding extraordinary writ practice in dependency cases)