San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court
227 Cal. App. 4th 215
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Minor D.F., born June 2009, was removed from mother M.E.’s custody on July 27, 2012, after investigations revealed mother’s significant cognitive and mental-health impairments and dependence on an abusive father figure.
- Dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 was sustained; reunification services were ordered and a case plan tailored to mother’s cognitive limitations was recommended.
- Psychological evaluations: Dr. Cavanaugh (May 2013) concluded mother was incapable of parenting or using reunification services within six months. UC Davis evaluators (report Jan. 2014) likewise found mother could not safely parent the child and indicated that meaningful progress would take years, though they recommended long-term supportive services.
- At the March 2014 contested 12-month review (actually >19 months since detention), the juvenile court found reasonable services had not been provided (due to delay in the UC Davis report) and ordered six additional months of reunification services. The Agency petitioned for writ relief.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court failed to make the statutory findings required to extend reunification beyond 18 months and that no substantial evidence supported extension or the reasonable-services finding; it granted a peremptory writ directing termination of reunification services and further proceedings under § 366.22/366.26.
Issues
| Issue | Agency's Argument | Mother (Real Party) / Juvenile Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could extend reunification services beyond 18 months without the statutory findings | Extension was improper because court did not make the required findings under § 361.5(a)(4) and § 366.22(b); no evidence showed substantial probability of return within the extended period | Court extended services, citing delay in obtaining second psych. eval and concluding reasonable services had not been provided | Reversed: court abused discretion; required findings were not made and could not be supported by the record, so extension was improper |
| Whether the Agency failed to provide reasonable reunification services warranting extension | Services were reasonable under the circumstances; many services had been provided and services recommended by UC Davis were long-term and not directed to reunification within statutory timeframes | Court found services unreasonable because the UC Davis-recommended services were not provided timely | Court held the reasonable-services finding was unsupported: the UC Davis recommendations were long-term supports, not obligatory reunification services, and no evidence showed inadequate efforts by Agency |
Key Cases Cited
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (1984) (procedural authority for issuing peremptory writ in the first instance)
- In re Rebecca H., 227 Cal.App.3d 825 (1991) (two-expert rule for denying reunification services where both conclude parent unlikely to reunify within statutory time)
- Sheila S. v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 872 (2000) (application of expert consensus to deny services)
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (2008) (standard of review for juvenile court reunification findings)
- In re Alvin R., 108 Cal.App.4th 962 (2003) (what constitutes reasonable reunification services)
- In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (1991) (reasonableness of services judged under the circumstances)
- In re Victoria M., 207 Cal.App.3d 1317 (1989) (developmentally disabled parents entitled to services responsive to their special needs)
- In re Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (1995) (factors excusing a parent’s failure to participate in services)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (policy favoring timely permanency and limits on duration of foster care)