Terri R. v. Superior Court CA1/3, A163402

Background

T.R. (born 2019) was removed from mother’s custody amid allegations of mother’s long‑term substance abuse, untreated mental illness, and failure to reunify with older children; D.H. was later elevated to presumed father; T.J. was an alleged father whose status was earlier stricken at his request.
T.R. was placed with a nonrelative caregiver (D.D.) who provided stable care and indicated willingness to adopt; San Francisco Juvenile Court ordered reunification services for mother and D.H. and transferred the case to Contra Costa County in August 2020.
Over the reunification period parents repeatedly failed to engage in core services: virtually no drug testing, minimal or inconsistent therapy/parenting participation, and sporadic supervised visits; caregivers and social workers reported observing parents apparently under the influence.
Contra Costa Bureau recommended terminating reunification and setting a § 366.26 permanency hearing after six‑ and twelve‑month reviews; juvenile court credited Bureau reports and testimony and found reasonable reunification services were provided and parents made only minimal progress.
Mother and D.H. petitioned by extraordinary writ claiming reunification services were unreasonable; alleged father T.J. petitioned claiming the court erred in setting a § 366.26 hearing without ordering DNA testing.
The Court of Appeal denied all three writ petitions on the merits, upholding the juvenile court’s findings that services were reasonable and that the court was not required to order DNA testing under these circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother was denied reasonable reunification services	Mother: services were inadequate (worker absences, lack of focus on her mental illness), so reunification period should be extended	County: services tailored to substance‑use/mental‑health problems were provided (drug testing, referrals, therapy, parenting); mother largely refused to participate	Court: substantial evidence supports that reasonable services were offered; parents’ nonparticipation, not agency inaction, prevented progress
Whether D.H. was denied reasonable services (and adequate visitation)	D.H.: inadequate assistance, interruptions from social worker medical leave, limited visitation impeded reunification	County: D.H. was offered substance‑abuse assessment, testing, therapy, parenting class and supervised visits; he refused drug testing and did not engage	Court: services were reasonable and tailored; D.H.’s failure to comply (no drug testing, continued substance use) justified termination of reunification
Whether juvenile court erred by setting § 366.26 without ordering DNA testing for alleged father T.J.	T.J.: court should determine biological paternity (DNA) before setting permanency hearing; equal protection argument for testing	County: T.J. is an alleged father who voluntarily limited his involvement earlier, did not seek presumed‑father status or reunification services, and lacks standing to challenge reunification findings	Court: no duty to order DNA here; alleged father lacks statutory right to reunification or custody absent presumed‑father status; denials of T.J.’s § 388 petitions are separately appealable

Key Cases Cited

Kevin R. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.4th 676 (substantial‑evidence standard for writ review of juvenile court orders)
Patricia W. v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.4th 397 (standard of review and evaluation of reunification services)
In re K.C., 212 Cal.App.4th 323 (reasonableness of reunification efforts judged by case circumstances)
Katie V. v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App.4th 586 (reunification services must be tailored to problems that led to removal)
Tracy J. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 1415 (record should show identification of problems, offered services, and agency efforts)
In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (services are voluntary; agency cannot force participation)
In re Ronell A., 44 Cal.App.4th 1352 (unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with services)
In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (services need only be reasonable, not perfect)
In re Hunter W., 200 Cal.App.4th 1454 (distinguishes alleged, biological, and presumed fathers and related rights)
In re O.S., 102 Cal.App.4th 1402 (alleged father lacks entitlement to reunification services)
In re J.H., 198 Cal.App.4th 635 (rule requiring court to decide biological parentage when JV‑505 is filed; DNA testing may be ordered when parentage is relevant)
In re P.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 974 (biological paternity alone does not entitle a man to presumed‑father status)
In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (orders denying § 388 relief are directly appealable)
In re Mary G., 151 Cal.App.4th 184 (equal protection issues where alleged father was treated differently solely due to geographic filing requirements)