Tracy J. v. Superior Court
202 Cal. App. 4th 1415
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Tracy J. and Michelle B. seek review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a 366.26 hearing.
- TJ was detained at birth with a petition alleging the parents were developmentally disabled and unable to provide regular care.
- The court sustained the petition, removed TJ, and ordered family reunification services and visits.
- PSRs and SDRC assessments showed the parents had disabilities but could potentially participate in services; visits were limited to supervised 3–4 hour sessions weekly.
- The court found detriment if TJ were returned, concluded services were not reasonably provided, terminated reunification, and set 366.26; this court stayed the 366.26 hearing and then granted relief through a writ of mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the detriment finding is supported by substantial evidence | Tracy argues evidence is speculative and relies on disability rather than behavior | Agency contends evaluators identified risks and noted need for ongoing services | Yes; substantial evidence supports detriment finding |
| Whether reasonable reunification services were offered given the parents’ disabilities | Services were not tailored to disabilities and were insufficient | Services were reasonably designed and offered within the constraints | Not substantial; services were not reasonably tailored nor sufficiently offered |
| Whether visitation was appropriately limited for disabled parents | Visitation should be more frequent and include in-home support | Supervised visits were appropriate and safety concerns justified limits | No; visitation limits were unreasonable without evidence of harm and blocked reunification |
| Whether the Nancy case’s services were inconsistently applied to TJ’s case | TJ’s parents were denied comparable services available in Nancy’s case | Nancy’s case had differing needs and managed plans | Yes; services for TJ were deficient relative to Nancy’s plan and accommodations required |
| Whether the court should continue the 18-month review to allow more time | There was no adequate opportunity to show parenting ability given service gaps | Six-month extension not warranted given progress | Yes; good cause to extend for six months |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jamie M., 134 Cal.App.3d 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (harm cannot be presumed from parental disability; specific examples required)
- Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (special needs of disabled parents must be accommodated)
- In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (reasonableness of services governed by circumstances; not perfect world)
- In re Riva M., 235 Cal.App.3d 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (services must remedy problems and accommodate disabled parents)
- David B. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (presumption in favor of reunification; services must be offered and reasonable)
- Robin V. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.4th 1158 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (adequacy of reunification plans judged by circumstances)