Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. M.O.
242 Cal. App. 4th 145
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- 12-year-old A.O. was declared a dependent under Welfare & Institutions Code §300(b) and removed from mother M.O.’s care due to mother’s untreated mental health issues.
- At the dispositional hearing the court removed A.O. and ordered reunification services for mother.
- At the six-month review the court found return would be detrimental and that DPSS had provided reasonable reunification services.
- At the 12-month review the court terminated reunification services and ordered placement of A.O. in a planned permanent living arrangement.
- Mother appealed the six- and 12-month review orders and also sought review of the original jurisdictional and dispositional findings, arguing the juvenile court failed to advise her of the right to appeal under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DPSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must reach merits of jurisdictional and dispositional rulings despite untimely appeal | Untimely because court failed to advise of appeal rights under rule 5.590(a); good cause to hear merits | Appeal is untimely; mother forfeited by failing to timely file; any advisement error doesn’t excuse timeliness | Court treated failure to give 5.590(a) advisement as "special circumstance," allowed merits review via extraordinary writ treatment and addressed jurisdiction/disposition |
| Whether mother waived challenge to jurisdiction/disposition by "submitting" at disposition | Submission was limited to reunification-services issue, not to jurisdiction or removal | Mother’s statement amounted to submission to the agency’s recommendations, thus waiver | Mother did not waive objections to jurisdiction/removal; her submission was limited and did not constitute full waiver |
| Whether DPSS provided reasonable reunification services at six- and 12-month reviews | Mother: DPSS failed to provide reasonable services tailored to her mental health needs (e.g., access to psychotropic medication evaluation and therapy) | DPSS: services were adequate; court’s findings should stand | Court reversed six- and 12-month findings that services were reasonable, vacated those findings, and remanded for provision of reasonable services including medication evaluation/therapy |
| Appropriate remedy on remand | Mother sought renewed services to allow meaningful opportunity to reunify | DPSS urged affirmance of earlier findings or no additional relief | Court ordered DPSS to provide reasonable reunification services consistent with case plan, including medication program referrals and therapy for a reasonable period to permit reunification efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Beurden Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 51 (jurisdictional nature of appeal deadlines)
- In re T.W., 197 Cal.App.4th 723 (challenge to jurisdiction must be raised in appeal from dispositional order)
- Adoption of Alexander S., 44 Cal.3d 857 (rare special circumstances may excuse failure to timely appeal)
- In re Cathina W., 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (failure to give writ advisement justified appellate review for good cause)
- In re Harmony B., 125 Cal.App.4th 831 (post-Cathina W. precedent allowing review when court fails to advise)
- In re Taylor J., 223 Cal.App.4th 1446 (reunification services must give parent reasonable opportunity to reunify)
- In re Alvin R., 108 Cal.App.4th 962 (same; scope and duration of services relevant to meaningful reunification)
Disposition: The appellate court affirmed jurisdiction and disposition but reversed and vacated the six- and 12-month findings that DPSS provided reasonable reunification services; remanded to require DPSS to provide reasonable, medication-inclusive services for a time sufficient to permit meaningful reunification.