San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jennifer M.
209 Cal. App. 4th 871
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jennifer M. appeals a juvenile court order terminating her reunification services under §388(c)(1)(B) while Christopher Y. continued services for reunification.
- Katelynn Y., a dependent child under three, was removed due to serious emotional damage and alleged sexual abuse by Jennifer and Christopher, and placed with paternal grandparents.
- Jennifer did not participate in services or visit for six months; Christopher participated in services previously while incarcerated and after release, with some progress.
- A §388(c) petition sought termination of Jennifer’s services and a §366.26 hearing; the agency initially supported termination for Jennifer but later recommended continuing Christopher’s services.
- The court terminated Jennifer’s reunification services (c(1)(B)) and continued Christopher’s services for six months, keeping Katelynn with the paternal grandparents.
- Jennifer challenges the legality and the court’s discretion in terminating her services while another parent still receives services; the court affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court terminate one parent’s reunification services under §388(c)(1)(B) while the other parent continues services? | Jennifer argues termination requires both parents to fail reunification. | The court may terminate one parent's services with the other continuing. | Yes; one parent's services may be terminated while the other continues. |
| Must a §366.26 hearing be set when reunification services are terminated for one parent? | Jennifer argues §388(c)(4) requires a §366.26 hearing. | §388(c)(4) is directory; failure to set a hearing does not void termination. | §366.26 hearing need not be set solely because the other parent is still in services. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in terminating Jennifer’s services given Christopher’s progress? | Jennifer contends continued services for Christopher and limited progress warrant more time for her. | Court may terminate Jennifer if she failed to participate and progress; continuing Christopher’s services serves child’s best interests. | No; the court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aryanna C., 132 Cal.App.4th 1234 (Cal. App. 2005) (no entitlement to a minimum period of services; court may terminate early)
- In re Jesse W., 157 Cal.App.4th 49 (Cal. App. 2007) (court may terminate one parent’s services when reunification efforts continue for the other)
- In re Alanna A., 135 Cal.App.4th 555 (Cal. App. 2005) (court may terminate one parent’s services while continuing the other’s)
- In re Gabriel K., 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (Cal. App. 2012) (continued services may be offered to one parent even if the other is not)
- In re Derrick S., 156 Cal.App.4th 436 (Cal. App. 2007) (legislative amendments codified ability to terminate early; substance of termination)
- In re M.F., 161 Cal.App.4th 673 (Cal. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation; consequences of noncompliance with steps)
- In re C. T., 100 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. App. 2002) (directory vs mandatory nature of statutory requirements)