Filed 7/26/22 In re E.S. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Cal ifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on 

opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re E.S. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B315846

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

20LJJP00331A–C

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat-Schirn, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant J.F. (mother) appeals determinations made 

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, 

subdivision (f)1 by the juvenile court that it would be detrimental 

to return two of her daughters to her custody and that she had 

been afforded reasonable reunification services. We conclude 

substantial evidence supports the findings of the court that it 

would have been detrimental to return the girls to their mother’s 

home at that time. We also conclude, as the court did, that the 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) provided reasonable reunification services.

Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Initial Proceedings

At the outset of these proceedings, mother had sole legal 

and physical custody of her three children: Emma (age 14), Lucy 

(age 8), and Donna (age 6).2 The Department filed a petition 

under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), regarding the children

in May 2020. The Department’s involvement with the family was 

triggered by a domestic violence incident between mother and her 

boyfriend, James V., in which mother kicked James out of the 

house. He attempted to reenter the house and mother used a 

pocketknife to cut him. James sustained a “big gash” on his right 

forearm. In June 2020, the court issued a stay-away order 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

2 The minors’ fathers are not involved in this appeal.
3

prohibiting James from having any contact with mother’s three 

children.

In July 2020, the court sustained the following 

jurisdictional allegations as to mother:

Count a-2: “The children[’s] mother ... and [R.M., father of 

Lucy and Donna], have a history of engaging in violent 

altercations, in the children’s presence. On a prior occasion, the 

father shoved the mother and pushed her face. Such violent 

conduct on the part of the father against the mother endangers 

the children’s physical health and safety and places the children 

at substantial risk of serious physical harm, damage, and 

danger.”

Count a-3: “On prior occasions, [R.M.] physically abused 

[Emma] by striking [her] face, causing the child’s nose to bleed. 

On prior occasions, the father spanked [Lucy and Donna]. Such 

physical abuse was excessive and caused the children 

unreasonable pain and suffering. The child’s mother knew or 

reasonably should have known of the physical abuse of the 

children on the part of the father and failed to protect the 

children. Such physical abuse of the children on the part of the 

father and the mother’s failure to protect the children endangers

the children’s physical health and safety and place the children 

at substantial risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, 

physical abuse and failure to protect.”

Count b-1: “[Mother] and the mother’s male companion, 

James [V.], have a history of engaging in violent altercations, 

while the children are in the home. In May of 2020, the mother 

caused a laceration on the mother’s male companion’s arm. The 

children have reported prior incidents where the mother and the 

father [sic] struck each other. The child Emma is a prior 
4

Dependent of the Juvenile Court due to the mother’s conduct. 

The mother’s conduct places the children at substantial risk of 

serious physical harm.”

Count b-3: “[Mother] has an unresolved history of 

substance abuse and is a regular user of marijuana and alcohol 

which negatively impacts the mother’s ability to provide regular 

care of the children. On 05/13/2020, the mother was under the 

influence of alcohol when the children were in the mother’s care 

and supervision. On 05/19/2020, the mother was under the 

influence of marijuana while the children were in the mother’s 

care and supervision. On 05/19/2020, the mother had a positive 

toxicology screen for marijuana. Additionally, the mother allowed 

her male companion, James [V.], to be under the influence of 

marijuana and alcohol while the children were home and while 

no other sober adult was present. The child, Donna is of such a 

young age as to require constant care and supervision and the 

mother’s actions interfere[ ] with providing regular care and 

supervision of the child. The child, Emma is a prior Dependent of 

the Juvenile Court due to the mother’s substance abuse. Such 

substance abuse on the part of the mother and failure to insure 

[sic] sober supervision of the children place the children at 

substantial risk of serious physical harm.”

Count b-5: “The children[’s] mother ... and [R.M.] have a 

history of engaging in violent altercations, in the children’s 

presence. On a prior occasion, the father shoved the mother and 

pushed her face. Such violent conduct on the part of the father 

against the mother endangers the children’s physical health and 

safety and places the children at substantial risk of serious 

physical harm, damage, and danger.”
5

Count b-6: “On prior occasions, [R.M.] physically abused 

[Emma] by striking [her] face, causing the child’s nose to bleed. 

On prior occasions, the father spanked [Lucy and Donna]. Such 

physical abuse was excessive and caused the children 

unreasonable pain and suffering. The child’s mother knew or 

reasonably should have known of the physical abuse of the 

children on the part of the father and failed to protect the 

children. Such physical abuse of the children on the part of the 

father and the mother’s failure to protect the children endangers 

the children’s physical health and safety and place[s] the children 

at substantial risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, 

physical abuse and failure to protect.”

The minors were removed from mother and initially placed 

with a family member. The court ordered monitored visitation for 

mother with Donna and Lucy three times a week. Mother’s case 

plan included a full drug and alcohol treatment program with a 

minimum six-month aftercare, weekly drug and alcohol testing, a 

12-step program, parenting classes, individual counseling, and 

conjoint counseling with James if mother chose to continue their 

relationship. Mother was also required to abide by the court’s 

stay-away order prohibiting contact between James and the 

minors. It appears the court also ordered individual counseling 

for each of the minors to address case issues as well as conjoint 

therapy for the two older girls with mother “if recommended by 

the children’s therapist.”

2. Permanency Hearing

2.1. The Department’s Reports

In preparation for the 12-month permanency hearing, the 

Department submitted a status review report in late July 2021. 
6

At that time, Lucy and Donna were residing together in a foster 

home and were doing well. Both minors were participating in 

therapy. Mother was participating in supervised visitation with 

the girls twice a week and visits were going well. Lucy told a 

Department social worker that she did not like James and was

afraid of him because he hits mother. Donna had said she did not 

want to live with James.

Emma was residing in a different foster placement and was 

receiving therapy twice a week. The social worker reported that 

Emma received therapy to address trauma she experienced at 

home, hearing voices, self-cutting, and suicidal ideation. Among 

other things, Emma had witnessed domestic violence between 

mother and James in the home and had once attempted to 

intervene. She had also had several psychiatric hospitalizations.

Emma’s therapist indicated that conjoint counseling with mother 

could begin in July 2021. Mother had been having monitored 

phone calls with Emma three times a week and was in the 

process of transitioning to in-person visitation. Emma reported 

that she wanted to see mother more often.

Mother was fully participating in her case plan. She was 

attending classes regarding parenting, anger management, and 

domestic violence, participating in family counseling and 

individual counseling, and had completed a 12-step outpatient 

treatment program. Mother remained free from drugs as well. By 

all accounts, mother was in compliance with her case plan and 

showing excellent progress in drug treatment and recovery. 

Nevertheless, the Department noted that the children did not feel 

safe living under mother’s care so long as mother was living with 

James.
7

Mother and James continued their relationship and in 

January 2021, mother gave birth to James’s child, Margaret. 

James, who has a history of abuse of methamphetamine,

voluntarily enrolled in services relating to domestic violence, 

anger management, parenting, and substance abuse. The 

Department represented that as of July 2021, mother was still 

living with James and was attending conjoint therapy with him.

The Department indicated that mother had not made the 

adjustments needed to reunify with her children, i.e., she 

continued in her relationship with James, and recommended 

continuing family reunification services.

In a last minute information for the court submitted on 

September 22, 2021, the Department reported that mother 

continued to comply fully with her case plan with the exception of 

the 12-step program. Mother had been attending online meetings 

but was not yet attending in-person meetings. Mother’s sponsor 

stated she had not yet met mother or begun working with her on 

the 12 steps.

The Department also reported that Emma did not want to 

visit with mother and wanted to live with her father and the 

paternal grandmother. Mother and Emma had had one conjoint 

therapy session in which Emma was extremely emotional and 

confrontational with mother and the therapist. The therapist 

recommended discontinuing conjoint sessions so that she could 

rebuild rapport with Emma. The Department expressed concern 

for Emma’s mental health and suggested that returning her to 

mother’s care at that time “will cause more harm to this youth.”

Visits between mother and the two younger girls were 

excellent and the monitor reported that mother was one of the 

best parents she had monitored. Mother visited consistently, 
8

appeared on time, and was very patient with the girls. Both girls 

had been participating in therapy sessions focusing on “irate and 

concerning behaviors that were reported in the initial Mental 

Health referral” and were now demonstrating “age-appropriate 

and sibling behaviors.” The therapy facilitator reported that the 

girls would be transitioning to a “lower level of Mental Health 

services.” Both girls had reported being fearful of James and 

although they missed mother, they did not want to return home if 

James was present because “he was mean and they were scared”

and they were “scared that their mother was going to die.” One of 

the girls acted out domestic violence during a play therapy 

session.

Regarding James, the Department provided several 

updates. First, mother had reported to the Department that 

James moved out of her apartment in May 2021. Both James and 

mother refused to provide his new address to the Department, 

however, and the Department expressed concern that mother was 

not being truthful. On September 10, 2021, James told the 

Department he was currently homeless and provided mother’s 

address for purposes of mail correspondence. Second, a 

representative from mother’s support groups (parenting, domestic 

violence, anger management) reported that mother and James 

had been attending virtual classes together since September 2020 

but, two weeks earlier, began attending from different locations.

Third, mother and James agreed to participate in a voluntary 

family maintenance case with the Department regarding 

Margaret. Finally, the Department expressed concern that 

“mother and boyfriend [James] were still living with each other 

for over a year since the case opened” because the Department 
9

“would not be able to return children to her care, while the stay 

away order was still in place.” 

In a further last minute information submitted on 

September 27, 2021, the Department reported that Emma 

continued to refuse to speak with mother and planned to write a 

letter to the court to convey her views on placement. The 

Department also advised the court that a social worker informed 

mother that the Department would not be recommending that 

the children be returned to her care. The Department had an 

ongoing concern about James’s residence because both mother 

and James had refused to provide an address for him. Mother 

replied that if the children were not returned to her at the 

permanency hearing, James would be moving back in with her.

2.2. Contested Hearing

The court conducted a contested hearing in September 2021

and October 2021. In addition to admitting the Department’s 

reports and last minute informations, the court heard testimony 

from the Department’s caseworker and mother.

The caseworker stated that the Department’s sole concern 

about the family related to James and the stay-away order 

preventing him from being near the minors. Specifically, the 

caseworker testified that although mother said James had moved 

out of her home in May 2021, James’s hats and clothing were still 

there when she assessed mother’s home in July 2021. Further, 

neither mother nor James would provide a current address for 

James after the move-out.3 And at a meeting in July 2021, James 

3 During her testimony, mother stated she did not have James’s 

address but that he was staying with “a family member.”
10

introduced himself to Department staff as mother’s “fiancé.”

Mother also told the caseworker that if the children were not 

returned to her, James would be moving back into her home.

Taken together, these facts led the Department to harbor 

concerns that mother would not abide by the stay-away order.

And the fact that James and mother had a history of domestic 

violence was the underlying cause for concern.

Regarding conjoint therapy between mother and the 

children, the court confirmed that conjoint therapy had been 

ordered for Emma and Lucy. The caseworker explained that she 

had been communicating with the girls’ therapists about conjoint 

therapy. The therapists had explained that the initial mental 

health referral was to address “irate behaviors” that the children 

were displaying earlier in the case. But because those behaviors 

had abated, the girls would now be transitioning to a different 

type of mental health care and would be working with new 

therapists. In the existing therapists’ view, it would be better to 

have the girls address their fear of James and begin conjoint 

therapy with mother with the new therapists.

3. Trial Court Orders; Appeal

The court issued written rulings on October 15, 2021. The 

court found that mother had made substantial progress on her 

case plan but determined that the children would be at 

substantial risk of harm if returned to her custody. Specifically, 

the court noted that the minors had been traumatized by 

witnessing domestic violence between mother and James and

were still fearful of James. The court also agreed with the 

Department and minors’ counsel and found that the Department 

had provided reasonable services.
11

The court ordered the Department to continue providing 

family reunification services for an additional six months. The 

court kept the stay-away order in effect, with the exception that 

James could participate in conjoint therapy with the minors if 

and when the minors’ therapists deem it appropriate. The court 

also reiterated that the Department had discretion to liberalize 

mother’s visitation. Finally, the court set a further hearing for 

April 15, 2022.4

Mother timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the court’s finding that returning Lucy 

and Donna to her custody would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional 

well-being is not supported by substantial evidence. Further, 

mother argues the Department failed to provide reasonable 

services during the most recent period of supervision. We address 

these arguments in turn. 

1. The Detriment Finding

Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s 

finding at the 12-month review hearing that returning Donna 

and Lucy to her custody would be detrimental to their safety or 

physical or emotional well-being. We disagree.

California’s dependency system is designed “to protect 

children from harm and to preserve families when safe for the 

child.” (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 

4 The parties have not updated this court regarding any further 

proceedings in the juvenile court.
12

1424 (Tracy J.); see also § 300.2.) During the reunification period 

of a dependency case, the primary focus is on preserving the 

family by addressing the issues that led to dependency 

jurisdiction. (Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 

495, 507.) That means until reunification services have been 

terminated, “family reunification is the goal and the parent is 

entitled to every presumption in favor of returning the child to 

parental custody.” (Tracy J., at p. 1424; see also §§ 366.21, 

366.22.)

At each review hearing following disposition, “there is a 

statutory presumption that the child will be returned to parental 

custody.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 308.) A court 

must return the child to her parent’s custody unless it finds by a 

preponderance of the evidence that doing so would “create a 

substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical 

or emotional well-being of the child.” (See § 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) 

The burden is on the Department to prove that the child would 

face some actual, non-speculative risk if she were returned to her 

parent’s custody. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 

1400 (Yvonne W.).) “In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court 

must consider the extent to which the parent participated in 

reunification services. [Citations.] The court must also consider 

the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating 

the conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement.” 

(Ibid.)

We review a juvenile court’s detriment finding for 

substantial evidence. (Tracy J., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1424.) Of course, we consider the evidence favorably to the 

prevailing party and resolve all conflicts in support of the trial 

court’s order. (Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401.)
13

“ ‘ “Substantial evidence” is evidence of ponderable legal 

significance, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid 

value. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘Inferences may constitute 

substantial evidence, but they must be the product of logic and 

reason. Speculation or conjecture alone is not substantial 

evidence. [Citations.]’ ” (Tracy J., at p. 1424.)

We have no difficulty concluding that substantial evidence 

supports the court’s detriment finding. As noted, the court 

removed Donna and Lucy from mother’s custody following a 

domestic violence incident between mother and James. That 

incident was not isolated. And as a result of domestic violence in 

the home, Donna and Lucy developed a fear of James and did not 

want to return to mother’s home if James was living there. The 

court, for its part, issued a stay-away order prohibiting James 

from having any contact with the girls. Yet, mother continued to 

live with James for the first full year of these proceedings. And 

although mother said that James had moved out of her home in 

May 2021, James’s clothing and other possessions remained in 

her home months later. Mother and James attended online 

classes from the same location. James introduced himself to 

Department staff as mother’s “fiancé.” And mother told the 

Department that if Donna and Lucy were not returned to her, 

James would be moving back into the home. These circumstances 

caused the Department to be concerned that if the girls were 

returned to mother’s custody, mother might allow James to have 

contact with them, which would likely be detrimental to their 

emotional well-being.

As mother notes, both the court and the Department agreed 

that the only issue of concern relates to James. Mother had fully 

complied with her case plan and was observed to be a good 
14

parent. Mother also asserts that the domestic violence issues 

arose in the context of substance abuse, which both she and 

James had addressed in classes and as demonstrated by their 

ongoing sobriety. We agree it appears, on this record, that mother 

has made excellent progress in addressing some of the issues that 

led to the removal of Donna and Lucy. Nevertheless, there is 

substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding that placing 

the girls with mother poses a substantial risk of detriment to 

their emotional well-being when they have said they are afraid 

James (with whom mother now has another child and a 

committed relationship) and their fear has not yet been 

addressed in therapy. (See In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 

962, 974–975 (Alvin R.) [“Insufficient counseling to address 

Alvin’s emotional trauma, his expression of fear and desire not to 

return to father’s custody, and the opinion of the social worker 

that returning Alvin would have an adverse effect on his 

emotional well-being, provide substantial evidence of substantial 

risk of detriment to Alvin’s emotional well-being.”].) 

Mother analogizes this case to Blanca P. v. Superior Court

(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738 (Blanca P.), and claims the juvenile 

court inappropriately based its finding here on the vague notion 

that Donna and Lucy “had been ‘exposed to trauma’ ” which she 

suggests was “an emotional response” by the court.

In Blanca P., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, unsubstantiated 

sexual abuse allegations were made against the father. The 

mother participated in parenting classes as part of her 

reunification plan, but she “refus[ed] to believe her husband 

[was] a child molester.” (Id. at p. 1751.) The social worker and a 

therapist opined that the mother had “not ‘internalized’ what she 

ha[d] learned in parenting classes,” and recommended against 
15

reunification. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal held “[t]he idea that, 

despite enduring countless hours of therapy and counseling 

(much of it predicated on the possibly erroneous assumption that 

her husband is a child molester), a parent who has faithfully 

attended required counseling and therapy sessions must still 

relinquish her child because she has not quite ‘internalized’ what 

she has been exposed to has an offensive, Orwellian odor. The 

failure to ‘internalize’ general parenting skills is simply too vague 

to constitute substantial, credible evidence of detriment.” (Ibid., 

fn. omitted.)

The circumstances in this case have no relation to those in

Blanca P. The juvenile court here did not rely on some vague 

notion of failure to internalize parenting education. Rather, it 

was the actions mother took during these proceedings that 

formed the basis of the court’s detriment finding. The court 

specifically noted that the children had expressed fear of James

“and taken together with the ambiguity of mother’s relationship 

with [James] and the reasonable doubt that if the children were 

released to mother that the stay-away order would be complied 

with and the children’s unresolved issues of fear of him and 

alienation of mother all combine to persuade me that there would 

be detriment if the children were returned.”

In sum, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding 

that it would have been detrimental to the children’s well-being 

to return them to mother’s custody at the time of the permanency 

hearing.

2. Reasonable Services Finding

Mother next contends insufficient evidence supports the 

court’s finding that the Department provided reasonable 

reunification services. We disagree.
16

When the juvenile court orders reunification services, the 

Department must provide the family with a plan that is tailored 

to the family’s needs and designed to eliminate the circumstances 

that gave rise to the children becoming dependents of the court. 

(In re Taylor J. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451.) The 

Department “must make a good faith effort to develop and 

implement a family reunification plan. [Citation.] ‘[T]he record 

should show that the supervising agency identified the problems 

leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy 

those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents 

during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts 

to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved 

difficult ... .’ [Citation.]” (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 

Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345 (Amanda H.).) The Department must 

also find and maintain contact with service providers and keep 

the parent informed of whether his or her progress is consistent 

and compliant with the court-ordered case plan. (Taylor J., at 

p. 1452.)

The Department’s efforts to provide reunification services 

do not have to be perfect, but they must be reasonable given the 

circumstances of the case. (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 

697.) Services are reasonable if the agency identifies the family’s 

issues, offers a case plan designed to address and eliminate those 

issues, maintains reasonable contact with the parents, and 

makes reasonable efforts to assist the parents when compliance 

with the case plan is difficult. (Amanda H., supra, 166 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1345.) We review a finding that the agency 

provided reasonable reunification services for substantial 

evidence. (Id. at p. 1346.)
17

Mother complains that the Department’s services were 

inadequate because she was not receiving conjoint therapy with 

Lucy and Donna and because their therapy was not addressing 

all case issues. As to the first issue—conjoint therapy—the case 

plan indicated that such therapy would be provided “if 

recommended by the children’s therapist.” And according to the 

Department’s caseworker, the girls’ current therapists had not 

instituted conjoint therapy because the girls were about to 

transition to different providers. Notably, the Department was 

ensuring that therapeutic services were provided to both Donna 

and Lucy and the caseworker had repeatedly discussed the issue 

of conjoint therapy with the therapists. These efforts were plainly 

reasonable and, as the caseworker noted, it was for the therapists 

to determine the appropriateness of conjoint therapy.

As to the second issue—that the girls’ therapy was not 

addressing case issues—we disagree. At the outset of the case, 

the girls demonstrated “irate and concerning behaviors that were 

reported in the initial Mental Health referral.” Understandably, 

their initial therapeutic work was focused on those behaviors. 

Once those behaviors had abated, the therapeutic work was 

transitioning to a different level of care that could focus on the 

other issues in the case, such as the girls’ fear of James and 

expressed desire not to live in a home with him. Again, the 

Department’s caseworker was diligent in her efforts to contact 

and discuss the issue with the participating therapists. That 

mother was dissatisfied with the pace of these efforts does not 

equate to a failure to provide reasonable services.

This case is distinguishable from Alvin R., supra, 108 

Cal.App.4th 962, on which mother relies. There, the minor

refused to visit with the father, substantially obstructing all 
18

father’s efforts to reunify. Conjoint therapy was deemed essential 

for any progress to occur, but the minor’s caregiver had 

scheduling difficulties and insisted upon seeing a therapist near 

her home. The court recognized that the caregiver’s demands 

were “a major obstacle to any reunification efforts” but held the 

Department responsible because “the Department’s only effort to 

overcome this obstacle was apparently to make a referral to a 

therapist who had no time available to see Alvin. There was no 

evidence that the Department made an effort to find other 

therapists in the area, or that the Department attempted to find 

transportation for Alvin to see an available therapist further 

away. Some effort must be made to overcome obstacles to the 

provision of reunification services.” (Id. at p. 973.) Here, as 

already explained, the Department’s caseworker had already 

ensured the girls were receiving therapy and they were in the 

process of transitioning to a different level of care. Following the 

transition, which the caseworker was overseeing, additional case 

issues could be addressed, and conjoint therapy could be 

considered. The Department’s efforts here, unlike in Alvin R., 

were designed to address the case issues and had been successful 

in abating the girls’ behavioral issues, which had been 

prioritized.

In any event, even if the Department’s services were 

inadequate, the available remedy—additional reunification 

services—was provided at the 12-month hearing when the court 

ordered the department to provide services for an additional six 

months. (See Amanda H., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1345 [“If, 

at the 12-month hearing, DCFS does not prove, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that it has provided reasonable services to 

the parent, family reunification services must be extended to the 
19

end of the 18-month period. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a), 366.21, 

subd. (g)(1); Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 

1158, 1164 [‘[c]ourts may not initiate proceedings to terminate 

parental rights unless they find adequate reunification services 

were provided to the parents’].)”].)

In short, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding 

that the Department provided mother with reasonable 

reunification services.

DISPOSITION

The October 15, 2021 orders are affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

ADAMS, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.