Southern v. Superior Court of San Francisco Cnty.
15 Cal. App. 5th 1113
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Infant K.S. was detained shortly after birth (Jan 2017) after mother tested positive for methamphetamine prenatally; dependency sustained under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) and (j).
- Mother has a long history of polysubstance abuse and four prior children whose parental rights were terminated after unsuccessful reunification; she entered outpatient treatment in April 2017 and provided multiple negative tests but initially denied prenatal use.
- Father has a multi-decade criminal and substance-abuse history; his parental rights to three prior children were terminated in 2008 after reunification services failed; he began outpatient treatment in May–June 2017 and submitted limited drug tests.
- Juvenile court bypassed reunification services for both parents under §361.5(b)(10) and (b)(11) (prior termination + no reasonable subsequent effort) and set a §366.26 permanency hearing; parents petitioned for writ relief.
- The juvenile court found parents’ recent efforts were too late and insufficient given their long histories; it additionally found reunification would not be in K.S.’s best interests under §361.5(c).
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | Agency / Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §361.5(b)(10) bypass was improper for mother (i.e., she made reasonable efforts after prior terminations) | Mother: recent treatment entry, 14 negative tests, counseling, consistent visits show reasonable efforts and changed conduct | Agency/Court: mother’s efforts were very recent, she used during pregnancy, denied use, long history of failed treatments and prior terminations | Court: Affirmed bypass — substantial evidence supports that mother’s belated efforts were not reasonable under (b)(10) |
| Whether §361.5(b)(10) bypass was improper for father | Father: limited proof about prior proceedings; recent engagement in treatment shows effort; no evidence of current substance abuse | Agency/Court: prior plans required abstinence/random testing; father failed to participate previously, had many arrests through 2016, minimal recent treatment | Court: Affirmed bypass — record supports finding father did not make reasonable efforts after earlier terminations |
| Whether reunification should be ordered under §361.5(c) (best interests) despite (b)(10) bypass | Mother: consistent appropriate visits and service engagement make reunification in K.S.’s best interest | Agency/Court: child’s need for prompt permanency, parents’ histories, lack of prior parenting of infant, and recent/limited progress counsel against reunification | Court: Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; reunification not in K.S.’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (recognizes bypass for parents unlikely to benefit from services)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 1450 (reasonableness of efforts need not equal cure; timing and quality matter)
- R.T. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 908 (duration, extent, and context of efforts are relevant to reasonableness)
- Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 87 (standard of review — substantial evidence supports bypass findings)
- In re G.L., 222 Cal.App.4th 1153 (contrast case where services were ordered despite long history — factual distinctions important)
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (standards for best-interest analysis under reunification statute)