Santa Cruz County Human Services Department v. J.P.
212 Cal. App. 4th 323
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- This appeal challenges a trial court order terminating reunification services for Father regarding K.C. and Z.J.
- The companion case In re K.C. (Dec. 20, 2012, H037296) affirmed removal, while this case concerns services termination.
- The central issue is whether reasonable reunification services were provided to Father.
- The Department’s primary tactic to obtain a psychotropic medication evaluation was to refer Father to a public clinic, which declined to provide the evaluation.
- The court found the Department failed to show it secured or could reasonably secure the recommended evaluation, reversing the termination of services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were reasonable reunification services provided to Father? | Father | Department | No; services were not reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amanda H. v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 1340 (2008) (requirement to provide tailored, good faith reunification efforts)
- In re Jamie M., 134 Cal.App.3d 530 (1982) (mental illness as starting point; tailor services to unique circumstances)
- In re Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (1995) (special needs of disabled parents must be accommodated in services)
- In re Victoria M., 207 Cal.App.3d 1317 (1989) (services must consider developmentally disabled parents)
- Tracy J. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 1415 (2012) (reaffirmed accommodation of parents' special needs)
- Mark N. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 996 (1998) (adequacy of reunification efforts judged by circumstances and ongoing assistance)