12 Cal. App. 5th 994
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Father A.J. was deported to Mexico after a domestic-violence arrest; mother R.G. had a history of alcohol-related neglect and the children were removed and placed in dependency in 2015.
- The juvenile court ordered reunification services for mother; A.J. later contacted the Agency from Tijuana seeking custody and reunification services.
- The Agency referred A.J. to Mexico’s DIF for a home evaluation, parenting classes, and domestic-violence counseling; DIF reported difficulty locating appropriate services and had not yet made referrals.
- A.J. briefly told the social worker he would not pursue reunification but then, within a week, requested reunification services and the court ordered the Agency to provide them for him.
- At the 12-month review the Agency recommended returning children to mother under family maintenance and offering discretionary services to A.J.; the court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been offered or provided to both parents and returned the children to mother.
- The Court of Appeal reversed as to A.J., holding the record lacked substantial evidence that court-ordered reunification services were actually offered or provided to him in Mexico.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency offered or provided reasonable reunification services to A.J. | A.J.: Agency failed to provide court-ordered services in Mexico and did not assist him in obtaining services via DIF; therefore finding is unsupported. | Agency: It made reasonable efforts under circumstances, referred A.J. to DIF, sought providers, and can provide discretionary services; any failure is harmless. | Reversed as to A.J.; insufficient substantial evidence that reasonable services were offered/provided. |
| Whether A.J.’s temporary statement declining services justified cessation of services | A.J.: N/A (argues he ultimately sought services) | Agency/Court: Father declined services after DIF contact, so Agency reasonably paused. | Court of Appeal: Father’s brief declination was not a valid waiver and did not relieve Agency of its obligation. |
| Whether deportation made Agency’s failure to provide services reasonable | Agency/Court: Deportation impeded services and was caused by father’s own conduct. | A.J.: Deportation does not excuse Agency’s statutory duty to attempt to provide services or assist in locating services in country of origin. | Deportation is not a legal basis to relieve Agency; services or assistance must still be attempted. |
| Whether harmless-error review applies to erroneous reasonable-services finding | Agency: Any error is harmless because discretionary services can cure deficiency. | A.J.: Statutory scheme requires remedy (additional reunification period); harmless analysis inappropriate. | Court: Harmless-error analysis does not apply; remedy is to provide additional reunification services and make a record finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alanna A., 135 Cal.App.4th 555 (2005) (describing reunification services’ critical role in dependency proceedings)
- In re Riva M., 235 Cal.App.3d 403 (1991) (agency must identify problems, offer services, maintain contact, and assist parents where compliance is difficult)
- In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (1991) (services need not be perfect, but must be reasonable under the circumstances)
- In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2002) (rejection of a ‘‘go to jail, lose your child’’ rule; parental misconduct does not automatically bar services)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (1993) (statutory reunification requirements protect parents’ interests and impose specific obligations on agencies)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (federal funding ties require courts/agencies to make findings about reasonable efforts to reunify families)