Filed 10/23/23 M.P. v. Superior Court CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California 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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

M.P. et. al.,

Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

MONTEREY COUNTY,

Respondent;

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT 

SERVICES,

 Real Party in Interest.

 H051039

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. 21JD000052)

The Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services

(Department), filed juvenile dependency petitions alleging the failure of the mother, E.C. 

(Mother), to protect and provide support for her minor children, J.C., D.C., A.C., and 

H.P. (the children), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).1 

The Department alleged that Mother was homeless, with a chronic history of 

homelessness, and had a history of drug abuse that impaired her ability to take care of her 

children. The Department also alleged that the whereabouts of the children’s respective 

fathers, including H.P.’s father M.P. (Father), as well as their interest in and ability to 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
2

parent the children were unknown under section 300, subdivision (g). The juvenile court 

ordered that the children be detained and placed in protective custody. 

The juvenile court later sustained the allegations of the petitions and granted 

reunification services to Mother and Father (the parents). Following a contested 

eighteen-month hearing, the court terminated the parents' family reunification services 

and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26 (section 

366.26 hearing).

The parents both filed petitions for extraordinary writ to vacate the court’s order 

terminating reunification services. The parents contend that the juvenile court should 

have extended reunification services from 18 months to 24 months based on their 

consistent progress with their case plans, which demonstrated a substantial probability 

that the children could be safely returned to them. Father additionally claims that the 

court erred in finding the Department had offered or provided reasonable services to him. 

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the parents’ claims lack merit and deny the 

writ petitions. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Petition and Detention (September 2021)

On September 24, 2021, the Department filed four juvenile dependency petitions 

alleging Mother had failed to supervise or protect her minor children, and that she was 

unable to provide regular care for the minor due to her mental illness, developmental 

disability, or substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The Department also alleged that 

the whereabouts of Father, as well as the alleged fathers of J.C., D.C., and A.C., were 

unknown such that the children had been left without any provision for support. (§ 300, 

subd. (g).) 

The Department alleged that Mother had child welfare history dating back to 2009 

from Oklahoma and Kansas, related to Mother’s history of drug use and homelessness, 

and that the children had previously been removed from Mother and placed in foster care 
3

before being reunified. The Department also alleged that in June 2017, it opened a 

Voluntary Family Maintenance case2for the family to address Mother’s homelessness 

and drug use issues. The Department provided these services to Mother for a year, but 

Mother did not meet her case plan or objectives and her participation was minimal. 

The Department alleged that on August 16, 2021, it received a referral of general 

neglect of the children. Mother and the children were residing at the Share Center, a 

homeless shelter in Salinas, as of August 2021. Mother was observed to be under the 

influence of drugs, as she appeared drowsy with slurred speech and slow movements. 

During a routine check-in at the shelter, a search of Mother’s bag revealed 

methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, a smoking pipe, a knife, and a taser. Mother was 

not cited or arrested for possession but placed on a behavioral contract, which included 

her going to Genesis House for drug treatment. The referral also reported that H.P., 

Mother’s youngest son, had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and was nonverbal, and that the three older children had behavioral issues. The children had been left 

without parental supervision in the shelter, and H.P. had been observed “ ‘always wearing 

a backpack with a leash.’ ” 

On September 14, the Department received another referral alleging physical 

abuse and general neglect of H.P. by Mother. On that day, H.P. woke up around 2:40 

a.m. screaming and crying, and when shelter staff arrived by his bedside, they observed 

H.P. had been tied to the bed. Mother was not at the shelter and took over an hour to 

return after shelter staff were able to contact her. Mother did not have any explanation 

for where she had been. Shelter staff additionally reported that they had previously 

2 County welfare department staff may provide family maintenance services for 

families with a child “who[ ] is in potential danger of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, who 

are willing to accept services and participate in corrective efforts, and where it is safe for 

the child to remain in the child’s home only with the provision of service.” (§ 16506, 

subd. (b).) 
4

spoken with Mother about tying up H.P. and were unaware she was also doing this at 

night. 

On September 15, the Department spoke with Mother’s shelter case coordinator, 

Britnee Lee, who reported that Mother and the children had been living in the shelter for 

approximately two months. Lee confirmed that when shelter staff came to assist H.P. the 

previous night, only the children were in the room and Mother was not present. Lee also 

stated that while Mother claimed she had just been outside “ ‘in the trees,’ ” staff had 

observed her being dropped off by a blue truck. 

Lee indicated that the children were left unsupervised in the shelter frequently, and 

complaints were made daily about their behavior. Lee opined that Mother’s drug abuse 

was making it difficult for her to take care of the children, particularly H.P. and A.C., 

who were developmentally challenged. Mother had also been kicked out of other shelters 

due to similar behavioral problems. Lee stated that Mother was receiving income from 

IHSS and SDI/SSI for H.P. and A.C. and was scheduled to move into a new home in 

October, but had not yet paid the landlord the necessary funds to secure housing. Staff 

additionally reported seeing Father in shelter at times and noted he displayed signs of 

being under the influence of drugs, including being wide-eyed, drooling, and unable to 

speak. 

The Department also held a meeting with Mother, who indicated that H.P. needed 

to wear a harness with a leash for safety purposes as he would run into the street without 

it. Mother denied tying H.P. to the bed but acknowledged that he frequently woke up 

screaming and crying in the middle of the night due to leg cramps. Mother claimed that

she had been taking a shower during the incident on September 14 and denied leaving the 

children unsupervised at any time. She claimed that she either left the children with 

Father or a friend or took the children with her if she left the shelter. Mother denied 

using any drugs and refused to submit to voluntary drug testing. 
5

The Department spoke with the oldest child, J.C., who denied that Mother had tied 

H.P. to the bed. J.C. claimed that Mother had either been in the bathroom taking a 

shower or in the Share Center’s library when H.P. woke up crying on September 14. J.C. 

also denied that Mother had left the shelter, leaving him or his siblings alone and 

unsupervised. Mother’s younger children, D.C. and A.C., refused to speak to the 

Department, and H.P. could not speak with the Department due to being non-verbal. 

On September 21, 2021, the Department informed Mother that it had scheduled an 

Emergency Response Child and Family Team meeting for September 22 and encouraged 

her to attend, but she did not do so. 

Initial and contested detention hearings were held on September 27 and 28, 2021. 

The court found that a prima facie showing had been made with respect to the allegations 

in the petition and ordered that J.C., D.C., A.C., and H.P. be detained and remain under 

the Department's care, custody, and control.

B. Jurisdictional/Dispositional Orders (November 2021) 

A jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was scheduled for November 16, 2021. 

In anticipation of the hearing, the Department’s report recommended that the court 

sustain the amended petitions3, adjudge J.C., D.C., A.C., and H.P. as dependents of the 

court, remove them from their parents, and offer reunification services to Mother and 

Father. The children had been placed in nonrelative resource family approved (RFA) 

homes in Monterey County, with only D.C. and A.C. being placed together. 

Although Mother continued to deny that she had tied H.P. to the bed or left the 

children unsupervised or unattended, she admitted to using methamphetamine two times 

a month and smoking marijuana daily. The Department noted that Mother had a number 

3 The Department requested that the petitions as to A.C. and H.P. be amended to 

indicate that their respective fathers’ whereabouts were no longer unknown as both of 

them had been in contact with the Department and expressed an interest in caring for 

A.C. and H.P. 
6

of strengths, including her recognition that she needed a substance abuse treatment 

program and her prior ability to remain drug-free, hold employment, and provide for her 

children. Mother was also willing to participate in a residential drug treatment program 

and a parenting program for special needs children. Mother was visiting the children 

weekly, and visits were reportedly going well as Mother and the children were happy to 

see each other. However, Mother struggled with setting boundaries for the older 

children, who used profanity, talked about gangs, spoke about wanting to fist fight, and 

would not listen to her when she softly asked them to not say bad words. Mother also 

had difficulty controlling H.P., who became hyper or unmanageable after having any 

sugary snacks. 

The Department was unable to assess Father’s strengths at the time, as he had not 

been available to meet with social workers, but indicated that Father had reached out to 

the Department directly and expressed an interest in caring for H.P. Father also had 

supervised weekly visits with H.P., where he would reportedly fall asleep while H.P. was 

watching videos on his phone. During one visit on November 4, Father fell asleep and 

could not be roused for a long period of time. Paramedics were ultimately called to 

awaken him, leading the Department to believe Father was under the influence of drugs 

at the time. 

The Department concluded that the children could not be safely placed with 

Mother due to her chronic substance abuse problems, which impaired her ability to 

provide them with a safe and stable home. Mother also was uninterested in engaging in 

safety planning due to her non-attendance of the Emergency Response Child and Family 

Team meeting that had previously been scheduled for September 2021. The Department 

believed Mother needed to complete a substance abuse treatment program and 

demonstrate her ability to provide a safe home for the children in order to successfully 

reunify with them. Similarly, the Department concluded that H.P. could not be placed 
7

with Father due to the indications that he was actively using drugs and did not have a safe 

home environment for H.P. to live. 

At the uncontested hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of the 

amended petition true, declared J.C., D.C., A.C., and H.P. as dependents of the court, and 

ordered family reunification services to the parents along with visitation in accordance 

with their case plans. A six-month review hearing was set for May 17, 2022. 

C. Six-Month Review 

On May 11, 2022, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the six-month 

review hearing. The Department indicated that Mother was unemployed as she was 

working on her sobriety and residing in a sober living environment. Mother had attended 

most of her scheduled parent meetings and all of her Child and Family Team meetings, 

and had demonstrated some improvement. However, the Department felt Mother 

continued to face challenges in mitigating the safety concerns that led to the original 

detention. 

The Department reported that Mother had completed a Family Mental Health 

Assessment and had been following the recommendations from the assessment to 

participate in weekly therapy sessions. Mother’s therapist reported that Mother was 

engaged in sessions and willing to talk about the dependency case, and had been able to 

identify stressors that impacted her ability to function. While Mother was not able to 

identify how her past trauma contributed to her life today or fully understand her role in 

the removal of the children from her care, Mother also appeared to be committed to 

reunification and was willing to work on her goals through therapy. Mother was also

participating in parenting education classes and had completed four weeks of the 

curriculum at the time of the report. While Mother’s instructor reported that Mother was 

argumentative and confrontational during week one of her classes, her behavior had since 

improved. 
8

At the beginning of the review period, Mother enrolled herself in an inpatient drug 

treatment program in Salinas and graduated from the program in January 2022. Mother 

had since transitioned to an outpatient program and was attending weekly individual and 

group classes, as well as Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) 

meetings three times a week. Mother also indicated she was working with a sponsor and 

was currently on step one of a 12-step program. Mother’s sponsor stated that Mother had 

initially been defensive and unwilling to take suggestions but later began to make 

progress and had maintained her sobriety for six months. Mother also agreed to submit to 

random hair follicle and urine drug testing; while the follicle test was still pending at the 

time of the report, her urinalysis tests came back negative for drugs. 

Mother attended all her supervised visitation during the review period. However, 

the Department noted that Mother often spoke with the children about the dependency 

case and shared information with them that was not age-appropriate. Mother also 

appeared to be encouraging the children not to use profanity or talk about violence 

because the “ ‘Department [was] watching’ ” as well as promising them they would 

return to her care by February 2022. Further, Mother appeared to be coaching the 

children about what to say to their therapists, including telling them to talk about how 

“traumatized” they were at being separated from her. While the Department provided 

Mother with feedback about more appropriate ways to speak with the children, Mother 

had difficulty accepting this feedback and often became defensive or “shut[] down.” 

The Department reported that while Mother had shown some progress during the 

review period and demonstrated improvements in her communication with the children 

during visits, Mother was not consistent and often reverted back to oversharing 

information or telling the children not to do something because they were being watched. 

With respect to Father, the Department noted that he had not been in constant 

contact during the review period or kept the Department updated on his substance use or 
9

recovery. Father only attended one scheduled parent meeting and did not follow up with 

the Department to schedule further meetings. 

Father regularly attended his supervised visitation every week but often just gave 

H.P. his phone to play with and did not bring any toys or activities. The Department 

noted that H.P. was often hyperactive during visitations and would try to climb on 

furniture or exit the room. Father was also observed falling asleep a number of times 

during one February visit and was warned that he needed to stay awake, or the visit 

would end. 

It was concluded by the Department that Mother: (1) had not been able to 

demonstrate that she could meet the children’s emotional and developmental needs; (2) 

was still in the process of identifying her past traumas through mental health services; (3) 

was still working on her recovery and being able to maintain consistency over a period of 

time with her recovery treatment; and (4) did not have stable housing. The Department 

also concluded that Father had not been able to: (1) demonstrate his ability to keep H.P.

safe and demonstrate age appropriate parenting; (2) demonstrate an understanding as to 

how his actions led to H.P.’s removal and what changes he would be willing to make to 

maintain H.P.’s safety and wellbeing; (3) address his substance abuse problem and 

demonstrate his ability to stay sober over a period of time; and (4) obtain stable housing. 

The Department therefore recommended that reunification services be continued for both 

Mother and Father. 

At the hearing on May 17, 2022, the court adopted the recommendations of the 

Department and continued reunification services for Mother and Father. A twelve-month 

review hearing was set for November 15, 2022. 

D. Twelve-Month Review

On November 4, 2022, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the twelvemonth hearing. The Department indicated that Mother had begun part-time employment 

as a security guard and continued to reside in a sober living environment. Mother 
10

attended all of her scheduled parent meetings and Child and Family Team meetings and 

had demonstrated some improvement. However, the Department continued to feel 

Mother was facing challenges in mitigating the safety concerns of her children and 

accepting her role in the children’s behaviors. 

Mother continued to attend weekly therapy sessions and showed positive progress 

in learning how to build positive communication skills with others and increase her 

ability to manage and express her anger appropriately. Mother also began using 

psychiatric medication, which led to a reduction in her verbal outbursts and emotional 

dysregulation, as well as her having more patience during A.C.’s behavioral outbursts in 

visitations. 

During the review period, Mother graduated from intensive outpatient services 

with her substance abuse recovery program and was participating in recovery services 

twice a month. However, Mother expressed frustration that she had not been allowed to 

move forward from step one in her 12-step program and could not articulate why her 

sponsor did not feel she was ready to progress to the next step. Mother ultimately found 

a new sponsor, who she felt would support her more and hold her accountable. Mother 

continued to attend NA meetings regularly up to six times weekly, submitted to all 

random drug tests, and completed a relapse prevention plan. 

The Department reported that while Mother continued to participate in parent 

education, she expressed frustration at multiple parent meetings about not understanding 

what was expected of her. Mother believed the children were safe in her care and that the 

only issue was the parents’ substance abuse issues. However, Mother acknowledged that 

she needed to learn more about mental and emotional abuse as she was unsure of how she 

could be inflicting it on her children. The Department also observed that Mother 

appeared to show improvement in parenting from a softer place and setting appropriate 

boundaries with the children despite having difficulties. 
11

The Department additionally reported that Mother, Father, and J.C. had been seen 

in the community together outside of their supervised visitations. Mother did not appear 

to be forthcoming about unapproved visitation by claiming she had no way of contacting 

J.C. then later reporting that he had been in touch with her. The Department informed 

Mother and Father that if they wished to have unsupervised contact with J.C., they were 

required to notify the Department immediately and provide information on where they 

were going to be and for how long, as well as report to the Department after the meeting

what they discussed and if they had any concerns for J.C. As Mother did not provide all 

the requested information, the Department informed her that she could not have any 

outside contact with J.C. unless the Department arranged for it. 

While Mother had reasonable visitation with the children during the reporting 

period, the Department observed that she had difficulty managing their needs together; 

however, she was open to suggestions of changes on how to manage their behavior. 

Mother had some visitations where she was unable to set boundaries and control the 

children’s behavior but also had a number of positive visitations where the children 

followed her directions and did not engage in any outburst or negative behavior. 

With respect to Father, the Department reported that he had obtained part-time 

employment and stable housing in a studio apartment in Marina. Father had also been 

more actively participating in case plan services and regularly attended visitations. 

During the review period, Father completed inpatient services with a sobriety date of 

March 17, 2022 and continued to participate in NA meetings and outpatient services. 

However, as Father had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance in June 

2022 and sentenced to serve time in county jail, he had requested that all referrals to 

parenting education be deferred until he completed his jail time in early November 2022. 

Father did not appear to understand the trauma and difficulty that the children 

were facing due to the parents’ choices and believed that with his sobriety, he would be 

able to care for all the children without difficulty. Father also did not believe H.P. was 
12

traumatized from using a backpack leash and felt it was useful to prevent him from 

running away. However, Father indicated he would benefit from more hands-on support 

to assist him with his parenting skills. 

Father had consistent supervised visitation with H.P., but many visits were spent 

sitting on the couches, eating snacks, and watching videos. H.P. was also observed 

playing with the room lights, running around the room, and climbing on top of the dining 

table. Father additionally claimed he had tried to engage in other activities such as 

coloring or readings books, but H.P. only wanted to “ ‘[watch] Netflix and chill.’ ” 

While the Department suggested Father bring in learning pages or ask the school or 

H.P.’s caregiver if any activities would be helpful during visitations, Father did not 

follow up on these suggestions. 

The Department concluded that Mother: (1) had not been able to demonstrate that 

she could meet the children’s emotional and developmental needs; (2) was still in the 

process of identifying her past traumas through mental health services; (3) was still 

working on her recovery and being able to maintain consistency over a period of time 

with her recovery treatment; and (4) did not have stable housing. The Department also 

concluded that Father: (1) had not been able to demonstrate his ability to keep H.P. safe 

and demonstrate age appropriate parenting; (2) had not been able to demonstrate an 

understanding as to how his actions led to H.P.’s removal and what changes he would be 

willing to make to maintain H.P.’s safety and wellbeing; (3) was still working on his 

recovery and being able to maintain consistency over a period of time with his recovery 

treatment; and (4) had not participated in any therapeutic or education decisions in 

relation to H.P.’s emotional and behavioral health. The Department therefore 

recommended that reunification services be continued for both Mother and Father. 

At the hearing on November 15, 2022, the court adopted the recommendations of 

the Department and continued reunification services for Mother and Father. An eighteenmonth review hearing was set for March 21, 2023. 
13

E. Termination of Reunification Services 

1. Eighteen-Month Report 

In anticipation of the eighteen-month review hearing, the Department 

recommended termination of family reunification services to both parents. In its status 

review report filed on March 10, 2023, the Department recommended that the court 

maintain H.P.’s dependency and out-of-home care, terminate the parents' family 

reunification services, and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing in 

July 2023. As to J.C., D.C., and A.C., the Department recommended that the court 

maintain their dependency and out-of-home care, terminate Mother’s family reunification 

services, deem the eighteen-month hearing as the selection and implementation hearing, 

and order long-term foster care as the permanent plan, with a post-permanency hearing to 

be set for September 2023. 

The Department reported that while Mother began new part-time employment as a 

caregiver in February 2023 and had participated in all case plan services, she continued to 

face challenges in mitigating safety concerns for the children, providing them with a 

stable home, and accepting her role in their behaviors. Mother was attending weekly 

therapy sessions and making progress on building healthy interpersonal boundaries with 

others, and continued to take psychiatric medication as directed, but was observed during 

many meetings to have a flat effect with minimal emotional responses to any topics. 

Mother continued to reside in a sober living environment but as of January 2023, 

she did not have funds to pay monthly rent and indicated that she may move in with 

Father. Mother’s contact with her sponsor had also been minimal during the reporting 

period, but she tested negative on random drug tests and reported that she had maintained 

sobriety for over a year. 

The Department noted that while it had multiple conversations with Mother about 

setting boundaries for her children, Mother still struggled to follow through with 

implementing the strategies discussed. For example, after the Department advised 
14

Mother of ways to redirect the children while still acknowledging their feelings, Mother 

made numerous comments to A.C. during a family meeting that did not utilize these 

tactics. Mother also did not appear to understand the Department’s concerns about 

providing snacks that contained ingredients found to escalate the children’s negative 

behaviors and mood, particularly in A.C.’s case. In addition, Mother was not engaging 

with the children’s schools regarding their academic progress and any difficulties they 

were having. Lastly, after the Department informed Mother in January 2023 that it would 

be recommending the termination of services and agreed that she would not discuss this 

with the children until therapeutic services were in place, Mother proceeded to share this 

information with the children during a supervised visitation three days later. 

As for Father, the Department noted he had retained his previous employment and 

housing during the review period. However, the Department felt Father continued to face 

challenges in mitigating the safety concerns for H.P. and the other children, and 

understanding his role in their behaviors. Father continued to attend NA meetings, 

completed a relapse prevention plan, and tested negative during random drug tests. 

However, Father still did not appear to understand the Department’s concerns around 

parenting the children, setting boundaries, or the role he played in the trauma the children 

faced while in the parents’ care. 

Mother and Father had reasonable visitation with all four children4 but continued 

to display difficulty in managing their needs, particularly when the children were 

together. Mother also continued to have unsupervised visits with J.C., despite being 

advised that this was not approved, and did not comply with the rules set in place for 

informing the Department about such visits, resulting these visits being pulled back. In 

4 Father requested visitation with all four children prior to the twelve-month 

review, but the Department did not believe it was appropriate at the time for a number of 

reasons, including Father’s lack of progress early in the case. The Department 

subsequently approved Father’s visitation with all four children for the eighteen-month 

review period. 
15

addition, family visitations were reduced from twice a week to once a week due to 

Mother not being able to manage the children’s behavior during visits, including them 

cursing at each other or antagonizing and hitting A.C. with little to no redirection from 

either parent. As a result of the behavioral issues, the Department and the parents came 

up with a number of rules that the parents were required to enforce during visits. While 

the parents did attempt to set some boundaries and enforce the rules in one December 

visit, they were not consistent and did not redirect the children’s misbehavior in a 

subsequent visit. The Department also expressed concern that Mother had admitted to a 

number of individuals that she could not manage all her children and did not know how 

to meet their emotional needs. Mother also blamed A.C. for her inability to reunify with 

the children and allowed the other children to make similar statements to A.C. 

The Department further noted that Father’s parenting style appeared to be very 

“hands off,” where he mostly remained quiet and did not redirect the children if they 

argued or hit one another. Father also laughed and antagonized the older boys by making 

jokes and had difficulty directing H.P. firmly, which resulted in H.P. running away from 

him during visitations. 

The Department concluded that Mother: (1) had not been able to demonstrate that 

she could meet the children’s emotional and developmental needs, such as knowing their 

triggers and how to prevent and respond to them, consistently placing their feelings 

before her own, and understanding how their past trauma is a direct reason for their 

current behaviors; (2) was still in the process of identifying her past traumas through 

mental health services and had not identified how her own trauma affected her ability to 

impact the children’s safety; and (3) did not have stable housing. The Department also 

concluded that Father had not been able to: (1) demonstrate his ability to keep H.P. safe 

and demonstrate age appropriate parenting; (2) demonstrate an understanding as to how 

his actions led to H.P.’s removal and what changes he would be willing to make to 

maintain H.P.’s safety and wellbeing; and (3) actively participate in or attend any 
16

medical, behavioral, or educational meetings or assessments in order to demonstrate his 

ability to understand and attend to H.P.’s needs. The Department further noted that 

while Mother and Father had participated in case plan services, they both failed to 

demonstrate sufficient behavioral change reflecting that they had learned from the 

services provided. The Department therefore recommended that reunification services be 

terminated for both Mother and Father. 

2. Contested Hearing 

On March 21, 2023, the court held an uncontested eighteen-month review hearing. 

Mother requested a contested hearing, which the court set for May 2, 2023. 

At the hearing on May 2, 2023, both parents testified on their own behalf. Father 

testified that he had been working at the Elijah Foundation in a transitional position for 

eight months and had recently begun working at Taco Bell. Father also indicated he had 

been living in a studio apartment in Marina since August 2022. Father confirmed he had 

been sober for 32 months, checked in with his sponsor every few weeks, and attended 

NA meetings three times a week. Father had been attending supervised visits weekly 

with H.P. but believed he was now ready for unsupervised visits. 

Father additionally testified that he was attending parenting classes regularly with 

no absences, and had learned more about how to properly parent H.P., including “fill[ing] 

his emotional cup and redirection.” Father disagreed with the Department’s assessment 

that he could not keep H.P. safe or demonstrate age-appropriate parenting, and indicated 

he was there for H.P. both physically and emotionally. Father also believed he had 

addressed the issues that led to H.P.’s removal, namely, his homelessness and active 

addiction, and demonstrated that he was now ready to raise and take care of H.P. 

However, when asked by the court to further explain how he meant to “be there” for H.P. 

and provide for his emotional, educational, and behavioral needs, Father had difficulty 

answering the question and ultimately indicated he was “not quite sure” how he would do 

this. 
17

Mother testified that during visitations, she attempted to keep the children 

occupied by bringing snacks and an activity for them to do together. Mother noted that 

the children had behavioral issues, but indicated she tried to work with the children by 

listening to what they were saying, “stay[ing] in the solution” with them, and telling them 

ways to handle these issues. Mother acknowledged that it was difficult to visit with all 

four children at once and found it helpful to have individual visits, where she noticed an 

improvement in their behavior. Mother described her relationship with the children as 

“very open,” where they trusted her with most of their problems, and she tried to support 

and problem solve with them. 

Mother additionally gave herself an “F” grade for her parenting skills at the time 

of removal, but felt she had improved over time to a “B” grade. Mother indicated she 

was now (1) more aware of what was going on and how she was acting; (2) clean and 

sober; (3) able to reflect and take constructive criticism; (4) able to communicate and 

collaborate with others; and (5) able to carry healthy relationships. 

The court also heard briefly from attorney Michael Atteridge, who represented all 

four children during the proceedings. Mr. Atteridge agreed with the Department’s 

recommendation to terminate services. While Mr. Atteridge noted the parents had done 

many things to improve since the children were first removed, they had not progressed 

after the twelve-month hearing to more visits, such as unsupervised or overnight visits. 

Given that 18 months had passed since the children’s initial removal, he did not think it 

was “warranted” to offer the parents additional services. The Department agreed with 

Mr. Atteridge’s comments and further noted that it had been a total of 20 months since 

the initial removal. 

After hearing argument from all parties, the court issued its ruling at a subsequent 

hearing on May 16, 2023. The court acknowledged that under Michael G. v. Superior 

Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609 (Michael G.), it had discretion to consent to new services 

despite the statutory limits for dependency matters. The court determined that the 
18

Department had offered reasonable services to the parents, and the parents’ participation 

in services had allowed them to understand the effect their drug use had on their ability to 

make decisions, regulate themselves, and parent. However, the court indicated that apart 

from the parents’ housing situation and drug use, one of the main issues that led to the 

original detention was their inability to control the children’s behaviors. The court noted 

that the children treated their parents with the “utmost disrespect” and were 

nonresponsive to requests to behave. The court therefore found that the children’s 

behavior in recent visits, particularly when one child continued to curse and kick one of 

the parents, demonstrated that the children still did not respect the parents or their 

authority. The court also admonished the parents for not using the children’s current

caregivers as resources to help them learn appropriate ways to regulate the children’s 

behavior and keep them under control; instead, the parents viewed the caregivers 

negatively and kept them at a distance. 

The court commended the parents for becoming sober and maintaining their 

sobriety and Father for finding employment and stable housing, and acknowledged that 

both parents clearly loved the children. However, the court noted that “discipline [was] 

part and parcel of love,” and the children’s current behavioral issues were the result of the 

parents’ non-parenting and lack of discipline over a number of years. 

The court ultimately found that Mother had not been able to demonstrate an ability 

to have appropriate, constructive disciplinary conversations with the children and 

implement clear and immediate boundaries to ensure their safety. The court also noted 

that Mother had still not found stable housing such that the children would not have 

suitable housing if returned to her. As for Father, the court found that while he had 

worked on his case plan, he had still not mitigated or alleviated the causes that led to the 

removal. The court also found that Father had not been able to demonstrate the 

following: (1) his ability to keep the children safe; (2) age appropriate parenting; (3) 
19

meeting the children’s developmental and emotional needs; and (4) implementing 

structure and clear boundaries to make sure of their safety. 

The court ordered that all four children remain dependents and terminated 

reunification services for both parents. The court set H.P.’s matter for a section 366.26 

selection and implementation hearing on August 29, 2023, with a post-permanency 

review hearing set for November 7, 2023. As for J.C., D.C., and A.C., the court deemed 

the eighteen-month hearing as the selection and implementation hearing and set a postpermanency review hearing for November 21, 2023. 

After making its ruling, the court encouraged the parents to not give up and keep 

working hard, including working on structure, implementing boundaries, staying sober, 

finding permanent housing, and understanding their role as a parent to be respected, not a 

friend. The court noted that once the parents felt they had made sufficient progress 

towards remediating the issues that led to the initial removal, they could consider filing a 

petition under section 388 demonstrating changed circumstances. 

F. Petitions for Extraordinary Writ 

Father and Mother filed timely notices of intent to file a petition for extraordinary 

writ on May 17, 2023, and May 18, 2023, respectively. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.450(e)(4)(A).) Within 10 days of the record being filed, Father and Mother timely filed 

their petitions for extraordinary writ with this court on June 29, 2023, and July 3, 2023, 

respectively. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(c)(1).) Real party in interest Department 

filed its opposition on July 18, 2023. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review 

Under section 300 et seq., “California has a comprehensive statutory scheme 

establishing procedures for the juvenile court to follow when and after a child is removed 

from the home for the child’s welfare. [Citations.]” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 

45, 52.) “ ‘The objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected 
20

children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if 

those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time.’ ” (In re 

Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.) 

When a dependent child is removed from a parent’s custody, section 361.5 of the 

Welfare and Institutions Code generally requires that parents receive reunification 

services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)5; see also § 361.5, subd. (a)(1) [describing family 

reunification services].) The purpose of such reunification services is to “ ‘eliminate the 

conditions leading to loss of custody and facilitate reunification of parent and child.’ ” (In 

re I.A. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 19, 23.) Facilitating reunification “ ‘furthers the goal of 

preservation of family'" (ibid.), which “ ‘is the first priority when child dependency 

proceedings are commenced.’ ” (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.) While 

“the law favors reunification whenever possible...reunification services constitute a 

benefit; there is no constitutional “ ‘ “entitlement” ’ ” to those services. [Citation.]” (In 

re Aryanna C. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1242.) 

Reunification services that are ordered generally begin with the dispositional 

hearing and, for children three years or older, end 12 months thereafter. (§ 361.5, subd. 

(a)(1)(A).) However, section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A) provides that services may be 

extended to 18 months “if it can be shown[...] that the permanent plan for the child is 

that the child will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time 

period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial 

probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of the child’s parent or 

guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been 

provided to the parent or guardian.” 

5 This section provides as follows: “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (b), . . . 

whenever a child is removed from a parent’s or guardian’s custody, the juvenile court 

shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the child’s 

mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians.” 
21

If the child is not returned to the parent at the eighteen-month review hearing, “the 

court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to [s]ection 366.26 in order to determine 

whether adoption, ... tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in 

foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. ... The court shall also order 

termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. ... The court shall 

determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been 

offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) “ ‘Absent 

extraordinary circumstances, the 18-month review hearing constitutes a critical juncture 

at which “the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of 

family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for 

the children.” [Citations.]’ ” (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 

307-308.) 

We review the juvenile court’s findings in support of an order terminating 

reunification services for substantial evidence. (J.H. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 

Cal.App.5th 530, 535.) “We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the 

evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in 

support of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the juvenile court's order, 

and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports 

a contrary conclusion. [Citation.]” (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 942, 947.)(.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s Order to Terminate 

Reunification Services 

Notably, the parents do not claim that there was insufficient evidence to support 

the court’s order to terminate services. Instead, the parents argue that reunification 

services should have been extended for an additional six months because there was a 

substantial probability of safely returning the children to them by that time. Mother 

contends she has been making consistent progress with her case plan, including: (1) 

attending weekly therapy and learning how to establish healthy boundaries; (2) 
22

maintaining her sobriety for over a year and residing in a sober living environment; (3) 

completing parenting courses that have helped her to be patient and listen to the children; 

(4) maintaining constant contact with the Department and attending all meetings and 

visitations; and (5) having a strong support network. Father similarly claims that he has 

been making steady progress with his case plan, including maintaining his sobriety, 

obtaining housing and steady employment, maintaining all visits, and being equipped to 

handle H.P.’s emotional and medical needs. The parents further argue that the court has 

the discretion to extend reunification services to 24 months under section 366.22 if they 

meet all the criteria under section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1).6 As the juvenile court 

found the parents had made significant progress in their case plans, the parents claim that 

they have met this criteria and therefore should be entitled to additional services. 

We disagree. While section 366.22, subdivision (b) provides for a further 

extension of services after 18 months, this is only applicable to “three narrowly defined 

categories of parents who have faced specified obstacles to reunification.” (Michael G., 

supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 628.) Those categories are: (1) a parent making progress in a 

court-ordered residential substantial abuse treatment program; (2) a parent who is a minor 

parent or nondependent minor parent at the time of the initial hearing; or (3) a parent 

recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or custody of the United 

States Department of Homeland Security Services. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).) Further, our 

high court has indicated that even if these exceptions apply, an extension is not automatic 

and additional conditions must first be met. (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 628 

[noting that the parent must be making significant and consistent progress in a treatment 

6 Under this section, the court may extend services if the parents have “maintained 

consistent and regular contact and visited the child[ren];...[¶] ..made significant progress 

in resolving the problems that led to the child[ren]'s removal and;...[¶] demonstrated the 

capacity and ability to complete the objectives of her treatment programs and provide for 

the child[ren]'s safety, protection, emotional well-being and special needs.” (§ 366.21, 

subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).) 
23

program or in establishing a safe home for the child, and the court must find extension of 

services is in the child’s best interest and that there is either a substantial probability of 

return to the parents at the end of the extension period or reasonable services were not 

provided].) 

None of the exceptions noted in section 366.22, subdivision (b), are applicable in 

the instant matter. While the parents were previously enrolled in inpatient treatment 

programs, they have both graduated. Accordingly, the parents fail to demonstrate that 

they meet the criteria for extending services for an additional six months. 

We recognize that under Michael G., the court has the discretion to extend 

reunification services past the eighteen-month mark under the “escape valve” in section 

352, which applies for “exceptional situations in which the court determines that 

extending services and continuing reunification efforts beyond 18 months is not contrary 

to the child's interests.” (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 632-634.) Nevertheless,

the court in’this matter acknowledged this discretion and ultimately did not find that it 

was in the best interests of the children to continue further services based on the parents’ 

lack of progress in addressing the children’s behavioral issues, one of the primary reasons 

for the initial removal. 

Further, in examining the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s 

order, there was substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding that Mother and 

Father had not made substantive progress in resolving or mitigating the issues that led to 

the children’s removal, namely: (1) meeting the emotional and developmental needs of 

the children; and (2) controlling or parenting them successfully. With respect to Mother, 

the record indicates that Mother still did not have stable housing where she could safely 

live with all four children if they were returned to her care. In addition, the record 

reflects that despite completing multiple parenting classes and receiving advice from 

various sources on how to establish appropriate boundaries with the children, Mother 

chose not to follow this advice repeatedly. While Mother had some positive visitations 
24

during the 18 months of services, her progress was inconsistent as she repeatedly 

struggled with maintaining control over all the children. In particular, we note that the 

Department documented more improvement in Mother’s parenting skills in the twelvemonth report than in the eighteen-month report. Such a difference indicates that Mother 

had not been able to make steady progress in alleviating the Department’s concerns about 

the children’s behavior. 

The record also reflects that Mother failed to redirect inappropriate conduct, did

not intervene when the older children blamed A.C. for the family’s inability to reunify, 

and did not regulate her emotions in front of the children. Another notable example 

includes Mother informing the children of the Department’s decision to terminate 

services only three days after the Department specifically asked her not to do so. Mother 

also did not consistently follow the detailed rules that she and the Department worked on 

to assist her during visits. The record demonstrates that she implemented them in one 

visit but failed to do so in a subsequent visit. 

Turning to Father, his repeated behavior during visits which included falling 

asleep, letting H.P. watch videos, and not maintaining sufficient control over H.P. –

resulting in H.P. running away or becoming hyperactive – reflected that Father had not 

made improvements in learning to act as an authority figure and to effectively discipline 

H.P. Further, Father’s inability to explain to the court how he intended to “be there” for 

H.P. demonstrated that he was not fully equipped to address H.P.’s emotional, 

educational, and behavioral needs. 

We additionally note that the children were represented at the hearing and their 

counsel agreed with the recommendation to terminate services, based on his observation 

that the parents had never progressed beyond supervised visits since the children’s initial 

removal. Further, at the time of the hearing, a total of 20 months had passed since 

removal, thus demonstrating that the parents had been given substantial time to resolve or 

mitigate the issues that resulted in removal, which they failed to do. 
25

Mother and Father are certainly to be commended for maintaining sobriety and 

taking significant steps towards stabilizing their housing and employment issues. 

Further, as noted by the court in its holding, both parents have the ability to continue 

working on the issues that resulted in their loss of custody and file section 388 petitions 

demonstrating changed circumstances. However, the record reflects there was substantial 

evidence that despite the parents’ progress in alleviating their substance abuse, housing, 

and employment issues, they failed to fully address the parenting and discipline issues 

that contributed to the children’s removal. Accordingly, the court did not err by 

terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing.

C. Father Fails to Demonstrate that the Department Did Not Provide or Offer 

Him Reasonable Services 

Father additionally argues that he did not receive reasonable reunification services 

because he was required to visit with all four children, as opposed to having one-on-one 

visits with H.P. Father claims that because these “ ‘family visits’ ” did not go well, it was 

detrimental to his progress and case plan to include the other children in his visitation 

“requirements.” 

Father’s argument fails for two reasons. First, Father’s visits with all four children 

only began after the twelve-month hearing, thus providing Father with a year of one-onone visitations with H.P. and sufficient time to demonstrate progress in his case plan, 

which, as detailed above, he did not do. Second, despite Father’s claim that he was 

somehow required to visit all four children, the record reflects that Father himself

requested visitation with all four children despite the Department’s initial 

recommendation otherwise. Therefore, we find no merit to Father’s contentions. 

III. DISPOSITION

The petitions for extraordinary writ are denied
___________________________________

Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________________________

Greenwood, P.J.

__________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

M.P. et al. v. Superior Court 

H051039