32 Cal. App. 5th 1
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Infant M.F. was removed at birth after testing positive for methamphetamine; mother Nicole was denied reunification; father Stephen was offered services.
- Stephen completed parenting classes and Al‑Anon but did not secure court‑ordered individual (TERM) therapy tailored to address codependency/domestic violence.
- Agency provided lists of approved therapists but did not timely assist Stephen in obtaining a TERM therapist; communications from counsel went unanswered.
- Agency cancelled planned expanded visitation/60‑day home trial and closed IFPP services citing home conditions and concerns about mother’s involvement; juvenile court found lack of electricity was not a protective risk.
- At the 12‑month review the juvenile court found reasonable services were not provided to Stephen, extended reunification for six months, and scheduled the next review beyond the statutory 18‑month date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.F.) | Defendant's Argument (Agency/Stephen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Agency did not provide reasonable services to father | Agency offered many services and a therapist list; difficulty scheduling therapy does not show unreasonable services | Agency failed to timely assist, omitted court‑ordered services (therapy/domestic violence) from reports, and curtailed visitation/support | Substantial evidence supports juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were not provided or offered |
| Whether juvenile court may extend reunification past 12/18‑month limits when reasonable services were not provided | Extension beyond statutory limit improper without evidence extension would enable reunification within the extended period | Statute authorizes extensions up to 24 months when reasonable services were not provided; court may extend without separate showing of likelihood of return | Court may extend reunification up to 24‑month review date on a no‑reasonable‑services finding; no separate likelihood‑of‑return finding required |
| Whether court must use section 352 continuance process to extend past 18‑month date | Court should not set review beyond 18 months without continuance analysis under §352 | Statutory scheme and due‑process concerns permit extension on no‑reasonable‑services finding without invoking §352 | Court need not invoke §352; statutory provisions obligate offering additional services when agency failed to provide reasonable services |
| Remedy for agency’s failure to provide court‑ordered services | Terminate reunification and set §366.26 because reunification unlikely | Provide additional reunification period to allow tailored services to be delivered and risk mitigated | Remedy is to extend reunification period (additional review period) so parent can receive required services; orders affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- T.J. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. App. 5th 1229 (court held juvenile court may extend services to 24 months when reasonable services were not provided)
- J.E. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. App. 5th 557 (failure to provide tailored services can justify finding of no reasonable services)
- Tracy J. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1415 (discusses reasonable services standard and visitation as component of reunification)
- Riva M. v. Superior Court, 235 Cal. App. 3d 403 (agency must identify problems, offer tailored services, maintain contact, assist when compliance difficult)
- Daniel G. v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1205 (due process requires reasonable services before termination)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 242 (explains protections and constraints provided by reunification requirements)
- Kevin R. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. App. 4th 676 (standard of review for dependency findings)