Opinion
S. S. appeals the juvenile court’s order at the six-month review hearing that continued its jurisdiction of his minor daughter, N. S. He contends the court did not make factual findings that returning N. S. to his
Factual and Procedural Background
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) removed N. S. from her parents’ care in November 2000 and filed a Welfare and Institutions Code
Discussion
I
The Agency contends S. S. has waived his right tо challenge the court’s order on appeal because he submitted to the Agency’s recommendations to continue jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, submitting “on a social worker’s recommendation dispels any challenge to and, in essence, endorses the court’s issuance of the recommended findings and orders. Consequently, a parеnt who submits on a recommendation waives his or her right to contest the juvenile court’s decision if it coincides with the social worker’s recommendation.” (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995)
Here, there is no evidence S. S. submitted on the recommendations. He specifically contested the recommendation that he had to be supervised
H
S. S. contends the court improperly retained jurisdiction of N. S. because there was no evidence she would suffer detriment if she remained in S. S.’s care. He assumes the court held a review hearing under section 366.21, subdivision (e).
In any matter in which а minor has been declared a dependent, the court must hold review hearings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1460(a).)
Section 364 authorizes review hearings in juvenile dependency matters when a minor is not removed from parental custody. One case has held that section 364 аpplies only to minors who have never been removed from parental custody. (In re Sarah M. (1991)
Section 364, subdivision (a) provides: “Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing.” Presumably, the In re Sarah M. court relied on the language “in which the child is not removed” when it stated section 364 applied only when a minor has never been removed from parental custody.
Under section 364, subdivision (c), the court “shall detеrmine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker . . . establishes by a preponderance of evidenсe that the conditions still exist [that] would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn.” S. S. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s decision not to terminate jurisdiction.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record for substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. (In re Baby Boy L. (1994)
The court assumed jurisdiction of N. S. because her cousin had been nonaccidentally injured while in S. S.’s care. The issue at the jurisdiction hearing, although not clear from our record here, was S. S.’s ability to
Moreover, the evidence showed S. S. was in total comрliance with his case plan. He was cooperative with the social worker and was open to the services provided to him. He had complied with all court orders and completed a parenting skills training class. He had addressed anger management techniques in individual counseling, never missed a treatment session and was amenable to therapy. His therapist reported he had shown good progress and was “making a concerted effort to integrate information learned in thеrapy into his daily life.” She believed he could move into the home and identified no factors that left N. S. at risk if in his care. Likewise, the social worker recommended that S. S. be allowed to return home.
There is no evidence the conditions that caused the court to take jurisdiction of N. S. still existed or would exist if jurisdiction were terminated. Without that evidence, the court was required by section 364, subdivision (c) to terminate its jurisdiction.
Disposition
The September 17, 2001, order continuing jurisdiction is reversed. The trial court is directed to vаcate that order and enter an order terminating jurisdiction.
Kremer, P. J., and O’Rourke, J., concurred.
Notes
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders in a nonpublished opinion. (In re N. S. (Mar. 26, 2002, D037729).)
In any event, we have the discretion to hear waived issues. (Lopez v. McMahon (1988)
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
The issue arose here because the court removed N. S. from parental custody under section 361, subdivision (c), but immediately plаced her with G. S. This is an act in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. (In re Andres G. (1998)