T. J. v. Superior Court of City & Cnty. of S.F.
21 Cal. App. 5th 1229
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Mother (T.J.) is intellectually disabled (IQ below 70) and was the sole caregiver for three boys (age 8, 4, 2) when San Francisco HSA removed the children in Aug 2016 for medical neglect and hazardous, moldy housing conditions.
- Court sustained only a Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(b) allegation that Mother’s mental/developmental disability impeded caregiving, placed children with maternal grandmother (MGM), and ordered reunification services (including GGRC referral, individual therapy, anger management, in‑home supports, AFW in‑home parenting, housing help, and therapeutic visitation).
- Over the 12‑ to 15‑month reunification period, Mother received visitation and some family therapy, but many core services were delayed or never delivered: long waitlists for GGRC/AFW, almost a year to start individual therapy, no anger‑management services, no sustained in‑home support or housing assistance. AFW services ceased after conflict in June 2017.
- At the contested 12‑month review (held at 15 months post‑removal), the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been offered, terminated reunification services, and set a § 366.26 permanency hearing. Mother sought writ relief contending services were unreasonable and untimely.
- The Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding the Agency did not provide reasonable reunification services tailored and timely enough to Mother’s disabilities; it vacated the reasonable‑services finding and termination, and ordered the juvenile court to continue the 12‑month permanency hearing and provide additional reunification services up to (but not beyond) 24 months from removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency provided or offered reasonable reunification services tailored to Mother’s intellectual disability and mental health | Agency failed to provide timely, specially tailored services (long waitlists, no anger management, no in‑home supports or housing help); delays meant services were not effectively offered | Agency identified appropriate programs (GGRC, AFW, Brilliant Corners, OMI) and made referrals; Mother was sometimes uncooperative | Held for Mother: substantial evidence lacking that reasonable services were provided; significant delays and failures to procure services meant statutory reasonable‑services requirement was not met |
| Whether the juvenile court properly terminated services and set a § 366.26 hearing where the court required clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided | Termination improper because clear and convincing proof of reasonable services was not present at the 12‑month review | Agency argued the standard does not change appellate review and that identified referrals suffice; also emphasized Mother’s partial noncooperation | Held for Mother: court abused discretion in terminating services and setting § 366.26 because reasonable‑services finding could not be sustained under the clear and convincing standard when viewed on the record |
| Whether delay in providing services can justify extending reunification services beyond the 18‑month statutory maximum | Where reasonable services were not provided for the statutory minimum period, court can order extended services on remand (up to 24 months) rather than immediately proceeding to § 366.26 | Agency argued extensions beyond 18 months are limited to circumstances enumerated in § 366.22(b) and related provisions | Held for Mother: appellate court may direct extended reunification services on remand (not to exceed 24 months from removal) when a timely challenge establishes reasonable services were not provided during the minimum statutory period |
| Standard of appellate review when trial required clear and convincing proof | Plaintiff: appellate review must be substantial evidence review but conducted "bearing in mind" the clear and convincing standard applied below | Defendant urged ordinary substantial evidence review | Held: apply substantial evidence review while bearing in mind that trial required clear and convincing proof; evidence must be sufficient to satisfy the higher certainty required at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alvin R., 108 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. Ct. App.) (explaining substantial‑evidence review of reasonable services findings)
- In re Angelia P., 28 Cal.3d 908 (Cal. 1981) (incorporating heightened trial burden into sufficiency review)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing standard required for termination decisions as a due process matter)
- In re Daniel G., 25 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reversal where services to developmentally disabled parent were inadequate)
- In re J.E., 3 Cal.App.5th 557 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court may exercise discretion to extend services beyond statutory periods when reasonable services were not provided)
- Tracy J. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 1415 (Cal. Ct. App.) (services must be designed to remedy problems and accommodate disabled parents)