1

Filed 5/31/24 In re D.T. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re D.T. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082126

(Super.Ct.Nos. J292608, J292609, 

J292610)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. 

Pace, Judge. Affirmed.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Tom Bunton, County Counsel and Landon Villavaso, Deputy County Counsel, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant S.T. (Father) appeals August 30, 2023 orders denying

Father reunification services for his three children, S.T., J.T., and D.T., pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7).

1

 Father 

claims that even if these bypass provisions apply, and authorized the court to bypass or 

deny services for Father, the court erred in denying services for Father because it was in 

the children’s best interests to reunify with Father. (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).) We conclude

1) the bypass provisions apply, and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding 

it would not be in the best interest of the children to reunify with Father, and therefore, to 

deny Father reunification services. Thus, we affirm the orders bypassing Father’s 

services.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

A. Background

Father and A.G. (the mother) are the parents of S.T., a boy born 2011, J.T., a girl 

born in 2015, and D.T., a boy born in 2017. In March 2022, the mother and children 

were living with the mother’s boyfriend, M.F. The mother and children had not seen 

Father since September 2021 when Father was arrested and jailed for violating a 2019 

domestic violence restraining order in favor of the mother. Father was released from 

custody on March 6, 2022.

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

On March 21, 2022, D.T., then age four, was taken to a hospital emergency room 

and found to have severe physical injuries consistent with nonaccidental trauma: two 

spinal fractures, six rib fractures in an “L” shape on his left side, a third degree burn on 

his left leg, a cut in a “Y” shape on his left hand, bruises on his body and head in different 

stages of healing, including bruising on his penis and on the inside of his lower lip. The 

incident was referred to plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino County Children and 

Family Services (CFS).

When a social worker questioned D.T. about his injuries at the hospital, D.T. said 

M.F. had been “hurting him” by pouring hot water on him and by putting M.F.’s hand on 

D.T.’s mouth so that D.T. could not breathe. When asked whether he wanted to see MF., 

D.T. said, “no because he [is] mean. He make[s] me bleed.” When asked whether he 

wanted to see his mother, D.T. said, “no, she’s not gonna pick me up anymore.” When 

asked whether he wanted to see Father, D.T. said, “no, [Father] [s]creamed at me. Made 

me cry at my normal house.”

The mother gave inconsistent versions of how D.T. sustained his injuries. Mother 

reported she was married to Father but had had no contact with Father since September 

2021, when Father was arrested for violating a domestic violence restraining order 

granted in favor of the mother. The mother said she lived with the children and that her 

boyfriend, M.F., only “randomly” spent the night. The mother worked full time, and 

M.F.’s mother watched D.T. while the mother was at work and S.T. and D.T. were at 

school. M.F. watched S.T. and D.T., but not J.T., when the mother would “go on a quick 

errand.” S.T. and J.T. denied knowing how D.T. was injured. After speaking with the 
4

mother and children, CFS took the children into protective custody. Given the ongoing 

police investigation of D.T.’s injuries, CFS was unable to speak with M.F.

CFS attempted to locate Father and found no address but discovered Father was 

arrested for domestic violence on September 2, 2021 and released from custody on March 

6, 2022. On March 23, 2022, Father called CFS after the maternal grandmother told 

Father the children were in protective custody. Father confirmed he had been released

from custody around two weeks earlier and said he had not seen the children “in months” 

due to the restraining order against him. Father said he would like the children in his 

care, and he was in the process of submitting “paperwork” in the family court to obtain 

custody of the children.

B. The Section 300 Petitions and Detention Hearing (March 2022)

On March 24, 2022, CFS filed petitions alleging the children were described in 

section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (i). The petitions alleged D.T.

suffered non-accidental, serious, and repeated physical harm while in the care of his 

mother; the mother failed to protect D.T. from serious physical harm, serious emotional 

damage, and sexual abuse; the parents engaged in domestic violence with each other in 

the presence of the children; all of this conduct placed all three children at risk. On 

March 25, the children were ordered detained outside parental custody. Father was 

granted supervised visitation, but the mother was ordered to have no contact with the 

children. Father waived his trial rights on the allegations and agreed to participate in 

predispositional reunification services, including on-demand drug testing and domestic 

violence classes.
5

C. Further Investigation of the Section 300 Allegations (March 2022 to June 2022)

1. M.F.’s Abuse of D.T.

M.F. admitted to police he “lost it” and physically abused D.T. after D.T. “acted 

out’ at a theme park on March 9. M.F. grabbed and pulled D.T. by the arm, causing 

D.T.’s arm to swell. In a second incident on March 19, apparently at mother’s home with 

the children, M.F. took D.T. to the “restroom,” sat D.T. on the toilet, and, when asked 

whether he had peed, D.T. said “no, not yet.” M.F. then grabbed D.T.’s arm and pulled 

on D.T. to get up, then “punched” D.T. four times on D.T.’s back while D.T. was seated 

on the toilet. M.F. then grabbed D.T. “from each side of his torso, lifted him and 

slammed [him] down to the floor with force,” then squeezed D.T’s torso with both hands 

after D.T. “landed on the tile floor.” D.T. continued to cry, so M.F. slapped D.T. across 

the face. M.F. reported the Mother, S.T. and J.T. were “in the bedroom” when the March 

19 incident occurred. M.F. denied causing injury to D.T.’s penis. The mother provided 

several versions of how D.T. was injured, changed her statements several times, and had 

no explanation for some of D.T’s injuries. The mother did not seek medical attention for 

D.T. until March 21, 2022 because M.F. “begged” the mother not to.

2. The Children’s April 25 Forensic Interviews

In a forensic interview on April 25 2022, D.T. said M.F. made him scared and he 

did not want to live with his mother and M.F. D.T. said his mother burned his foot 

because “she hates me”, and M.F. broke his hand, poked his eyes with his fingers, and hit 

D.T. on multiple occasions. In separate forensic interviews, S.T. and J.T. said M.F. 
6

would hit D.T. on his buttocks, arms, legs, and chest with a belt, flip-flop/slipper and 

hands resulting in bruising and red marks.”

3. The Parents’ History of Domestic Violence

Regarding the parents’ history of domestic violence, CFS obtained police reports 

from November 9, 2019, October 3, 2020, and September 1, 2021. The November 9 

report showed Father was arrested for domestic violence with the mother on November 9, 

2019 “after an argument turned physical.” The mother reported Father punched the 

mother in the nose, causing the mother’s nose to bleed. S.T. told officers his parents 

were arguing because Father “did not want to pay bills anymore.” Based on the 

November 2019 incident, the mother obtained a domestic violence restraining order 

against Father.

On October 3, 2020, Father was arrested for violating the restraining order after he 

entered the mother’s home in violation of the order, and the mother locked herself and

J.T. in a bathroom. On September 1, 2021, Father was again arrested for violating the 

restraining order. At that time, the mother said the children told the mother that Father 

had been “yelling at” the children and “putting them down” “throughout the day.” The 

mother saw that Father was “acting strange.” Father “disclosed methamphetamine use” 

to police. For violating the restraining order, Father was in jail from September 1, 2021 

until March 6, 2022.

Father admitted having a history of domestic violence with the mother in the 

presence of the children. Father reported the mother was “very jealous” and a “big 

woman” who was “aggressive” and “violent” toward Father. The mother once held 
7

Father against a wall, hid Father’s car keys and shoes, and slapped Father. After Father 

tired of the mother’s behavior and began hitting her back, Father was arrested in 2019, 

and the restraining order was issued against Father. Father claimed the order was 

modified in 2020 to a peaceful contact order, but he and the mother lived in the same 

property, and the mother continued to call law enforcement. Father claimed he no longer 

used alcohol or any controlled substances including methamphetamine. Father was 

referred for counseling, domestic violence, parenting, and drug testing services.

The mother claimed that, sometime before September 2021, the mother and Father 

used drugs together (cocaine and methamphetamine) for six months. The mother said 

Father “would pick fights with her when he was coming down from drugs and he would 

yell more,” and was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested in September 

2021 for violating the restraining order.

4. Additional Evidence

On April 2, 2022, a paternal cousin said the paternal grandmother (PGM) had 

raised the children since birth. The PGM lived with both parents, then the mother, until 

February 2022 when the mother moved away with the children and cut off all contact 

with the paternal family. According to the paternal cousin, the parents had marital issues 

due to the mother cheating on the Father. In December 2021, the paternal family learned 

the mother had been seeing M.F.

The PGM reported the mother was “aggressive” toward all of the children with a 

belt and hands, and the PGM and Father would intervene to protect the children from the 
8

mother when the parents, children, and PGM lived together. The PGM said she was 

“more of a mother figure” for the children and the mother was “rarely home.”

On April 26, 2022, the maternal grandmother (MGM) reported she had been 

caring for the children while the mother was at work, before the mother moved away with 

the children in February 2022. At that point, M.F. would not allow the mother to answer 

her phone or have contact with the maternal family, and the MGM did not know where 

the mother and children were living. The MGM later disclosed she saw bruising on

D.T.’s cheeks, butt, and legs, in February 2002 and questioned the mother about the 

bruises. The mother, S.T., and J.T. told the MGM that D.T. hurt himself while playing 

on a bunk bed. The MGM also said Father had a substance abuse issue which caused the 

mother to have to work two jobs.

In April and May 2022, Father tested negative for controlled substances, and he 

was participating in services, including domestic violence classes and counseling. CFS 

reported Father was “very communicative” and had been “nothing less than cooperative”

with CFS. Father was also “very mindful” of D.T.’s medical needs. A paternal aunt 

reported Father was working six to seven days per week, attending church, and going to 

the gym. In therapy, Father was presenting with posttraumatic stress symptoms due to 

M.F.’s severe physical abuse of D.T., and Father was “learning to use coping 

mechanisms (deep breathing, stretching,

walking away) to deal with stressors and anxiety.”
9

D. Father’s Initial Visits with the Children

On March 30, 2022. Father had his first supervised visit with S.T. and J.T. Father, 

S.T., and J.T. were laughing and playing together, and J.T. went to Father for comfort 

when she heard screaming from another room. Father had his first visit with D.T. on 

April 2. D.T. was still unable to walk due to his injuries but was comfortable engaging 

with Father, smiled at and reached for father, and cried for Father at the end of the visit. 

Father was always appropriate with the children during his weekly supervised visits; 

Father came prepared with games and activities and engaged well with the children. On 

several occasions, the children asked about returning to father’s care.

On May 10, 2022, Father’s visits were liberalized to unsupervised. On June 18, 

J.T. reported Father yelled at her and her siblings during an unsupervised visit. J.T. 

denied she was fearful of Father and explained Father became upset at the children and 

told them they need to respect Father.

On July 5, 2022, a maternal cousin called CFS to report that Father was no longer 

living in her home with D.T. Father left the home with D.T. on July 5, the day after the 

cousin and Father had a disagreement. The cousin said Father was “upset” due to 

“stressors such as work,” CFS’s involvement in his life, and the fact S.T. and J.T. were 

not in his care. On July 7, S.T. and J.T. reported Father yelled at them and kicked a trash 

can during an unsupervised visit on July 6. S.T. and J.T. said Father had been “upset 

lately.”

On July 11, 2022, CFS held a meeting to address Father’s behavior. Father told 

CFS he was having a difficult time because S.T. and J.T. were not in his care, and he felt 
10

sad and depressed because he was on a budget and unable to buy the children things. 

CFS stressed the importance of Father using his coping skills and support network. S.T. 

and J.T. participated in the meeting and said that even though Father yelled at them 

during their past two visits, they looked forward to visiting Father and wanted to live with 

Father. D.T. reported feeling happy and safe in Father’s care. D.T. was described as 

“extremely bonded” to Father.

E. The Original Jurisdiction and Disposition Orders (July 2022)

On July 28, 2022, at the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on the 

section 300 petitions, the court dismissed the subdivision (g) allegations (that the mother 

left the children with no provision for support) and found the other allegations true. The 

court denied reunification services for the mother (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(5), (b)(6)), found 

Father was the children’s presumed father, returned D.T. to Father’s care with family 

maintenance services, and granted Father reunification services for S.T. and J.T. who 

remained in foster care.

On January 23, 2023, CFS reported D.T. was doing well in Father’s care. Father 

was taking D.T. to his medical appointments and D.T.’s injuries had mostly healed. D.T. 

was meeting his developmental milestones but he was referred to a neurologist for his eye 

injury and for mental health services. Father was still participating in services; he had 

completed a parenting program, 35 of 52 domestic violence classes, and he was attending 
11

individual counseling.2 Father reported he had learned coping skills in counseling. 

Father was renting a three-bedroom, three-bath home for himself and all three children in 

anticipation of having J.T. and S.T. returned to his care. On January 30, 2023, the court 

continued D.T. in Father’s care and returned S.T. and J.T. to Father’s care, with family 

maintenance services for all the children.

F. The Section 342 and 387 Petitions (May 2023)

On May 1, 2023, three months after J.T. and S.T. were returned to Father’s care, 

CFS filed subsequent and supplemental petitions for the children pursuant to sections 342 

and 387. The petitions alleged that on four occasions between February 24, 2023 and 

April 24, 2023, Father physically abused 11-year old S.T. by punching and slapping S.T. 

on the face very hard, multiple times, and Father’s conduct placed all three children at 

risk of similar abuse.

1. Background

On February 24, 2023, J.T. disclosed that Father yelled at her and her siblings for 

no reason, and that one day Father “walked out of the kitchen and hit [S.T.] across the 

face really hard.” J.T. said Father said J.T. and the children were “not supposed to say 

anything and not cause any trouble” and J.T. was scared to go home to Father. CFS 

concluded the referral would not be substantiated because the discipline Father used did 

not rise to the level of abuse.

2

 The domestic violence classes were a condition of Father’s probation for 

violating the 2019 restraining order. Father was in compliance with the conditions of his 

probation.
12

On March 7, 2023, S.T. disclosed Father hit him on his face very hard. CFS found 

this referral, too, would not be substantiated, but referred Father to counseling and 

advised him to use other forms of discipline. On March 16, S.T. disclosed Father 

“socked him on the jaw” two weeks earlier, and that on March 15, Father again “socked 

him on the jaw and slapped his face with an open hand.” S.T. said he did not want to be 

around Father and feared returning home; Father would get angry and tell S.T. he does 

not like his attitude, then Father would hit S.T. S.T. had no observable marks or bruises. 

CFS concluded the March 15 incident would also be unsubstantiated. On April 24, 

another referral was made alleging Father’s physical and emotional abuse of S.T. CFS 

decided to file the section 342 and 387 petitions while still investigating the April 24 

referral.

The children were interviewed separately at school on April 25, 2023. D.T. said 

he had heard S.T. crying from Father smacking S.T., but D.T. did not remember the day 

he heard the smacking. J.T. said she saw Father put his hand on S.T.’s face, but it was 

“not hard.” S.T. said he left home on April 24, after he talked to the social worker, and 

he went to the home of his prior foster parents, because Father looked like Father was 

going to hit S.T. When asked to explain, S.T. said Father clenched his fist, appeared 

angry, and told S.T. to “stop bothering him.” S.T. was very frightened, held his hands up 

to block his face, and repeatedly apologized to Father. S.T. said Father was “imagining” 

that the children were “intentionally trying to agitate him when they do something on 

accident.” S.T. confirmed that the prior referrals of Father hitting S.T. were true. S.T. 

wanted to live with the PGM.
13

When interviewed on April 26, 2022, Father said he was unsure why S.T. was 

alleging Father was physically and emotionally abusive toward S.T., and S.T. had no 

reason to feel threatened. Father said S.T. would try to find ways to make Father angry, 

but Father would try to ignore S.T.’s behavior. The children were taken into protective 

custody.

2. Detention

At a detention hearing on May 2, 2022, the court detained the children from Father 

and allowed Father weekly, two-hour supervised visits. On May 25, CFS interviewed 

each child about the allegations of Father’s physical

abuse. Father declined to discuss the allegations with CFS.

3. The Children’s Further Interviews

In his May 25 interview, S.T. recalled the February 24 referral was made because 

Father slapped S.T. hard on his cheek “for no reason” when S.T., J.T., and D.T. were

sitting on the living room couch watching television. S.T. recalled that Father told S.T. 

that S.T. was bothering Father and to stop it.

S.T. explained that the March 7 referral occurred after S.T. asked his former foster 

brother, who attended S.T.’s school, to tell S.T.’s former foster father to notify S.T.’s 

social worker that Father was hitting S.T. By that time, Father had been hitting S.T. more 

frequently, “every few days,” by slapping S.T. with his open hand. The slapping 

incidents did not cause any marks or bruises, but one of the slaps made S.T.’s face hurt 

for a few days. When asked why Father was slapping him, S.T. said Father would 
14

complain that S.T. was “bothering” Father, but S.T. would not be doing anything to 

bother Father.

S.T. described the March 16 referral as Father “sock[ing]” S.T. on the jaw with a 

closed fist, which hurt for a while. S.T. sometimes feared going home because he felt 

Father would hit him. S.T. said the April 24 referral occurred because Father asked S.T. 

to take out the trash, and S.T. told Father he would do so after he ate. Father raised his 

hand as if he was going to hit S.T., but S.T. apologized, pleaded with Father not to hit 

him, and Father did not hit him. S.T. ate, took the trash out, then went to his prior foster 

home and reported the incident. Following the incident, Father asked S.T. why S.T. “acts

out,” and S.T. told Father he acted out because he wanted to live with the PGM. S.T. felt 

he did not misbehave with Father and said Father was always angry at him and his 

siblings for no reason.

S.T. reported he and Father had a good relationship when S.T. was younger. 

Father never hit him and was a good provider to the family. S.T. recalled the family lived 

in Washington when S.T. was younger, but returned to California because they did not 

have enough money. They moved into the MGM’s garage, then Father went to jail. S.T. 

said Father’s “mindset is different” now because Father was very worried about what the 

mother and M.F. had done to D.T. S.T. confirmed he did not want to live with Father 

because he did not believe he would be safe with Father even if Father were to get help, 

but he wanted to visit Father.

J.T. said Father had never hit her, but she felt scared when Father yelled at her and 

her brothers and when he would say bad words in Spanish. Father would accuse J.T. and 
15

S.T. of saying bad words to Father, but J.T. said Father was “hearing things” and had 

falsely accused S.T. of saying “F. . . you” to Father. Father would tell J.T. and S.T. that 

they had “ruined his life” and his life would be “different” if they were not at home with 

him. J.T. recalled a time when Father “skipped” into the living room, slapped S.T., then 

“skipped” back to the kitchen. Father appeared “happy” for having slapped S.T., but J.T. 

saw tears on S.T.’s face. Another time, J.T. heard S.T., who was cooking in the kitchen, 

“crying and screaming” telling Father to stop hitting him when S.T. was not doing 

anything wrong. J.T. wanted to live with the PGM. In his May 25 interview, D.T. said 

Father was “mean” to S.T. and J.T., and D.T. recalled hearing Father smack S.T. multiple 

times.

4. CFS’s Recommendations

In a June 1, 2023 jurisdiction/disposition report, CFS recommended the court 

sustain the allegations of the sections 342 and 387 petitions and deny Father reunification 

services for the children pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7). CFS 

concluded Father’s prognosis for reunifying with the children was poor. Father’s 

supervised visits with the children were going well, however, and CFS had no concerns 

about the visits. A June 6 hearing on the section 342 and 387 petitions was continued for 

further assessments.

5. The August 30, 2023 Findings and Orders Denying Father Services

At the August 30, 2023 contested hearing, the court sustained the allegations of 

the petitions. Father’s counsel argued section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7) did 

not apply to Father, and even if the statutes applied, the court should order reunification 
16

services for Father because Father could reunify with the children within the next six 

months. The court found that the bypass provisions applied and that granting Father 

services would not serve the best interest of the children. Father timely appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

Father claims that even if section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7) applied and 

authorized the court to deny Father services, the court erroneously denied Father services 

because reunifying with Father was in the children’s best interest. (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).) 

We conclude that section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7) applied. We also conclude 

the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father services, because substantial 

evidence shows the court reasonably determined that reunifying with Father was not in 

the children’s best interest. Thus, we find no error in the August 30, 2023 orders.

A. Section 361.5, Subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7) Apply

When a child is removed from a parent’s custody, the parent is generally entitled 

to reunification services for the child under section 361.5, subdivision (a), unless an 

exception set forth in subdivision (b) of the statute applies. “Section 361.5, subdivision 

(b) provides exceptions to the general entitlement to reunification services set forth in 

section 361.5, subdivision (a).” (In re A.G. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 276, 280.)

Under subdivision (b), reunification services “need not be provided” to a parent

when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that an exception set forth in 

section 361.5, subdivision (b) applies. (In re S.B. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 612, 622.)

These exceptions allow the court to “bypass” services for the parent and reflect our 
17

Legislature’s intent to provide services to parents “only where those services will 

facilitate the return of children to parental custody.” (Ibid.)

“Consonant with the general presumption in favor of mandatory reunification

services, the bypass provisions are ‘narrow in scope’ and reach situations where ‘ “the

likelihood of reunification” ’ is ‘ “so slim” ’ due to a parent’s past failures that

‘expend[ing]’ the Department’s ‘ “scarce” ’ resources on reunification services is likely

to be ‘fruitless,’ or when ‘attempts to facilitate reunification’ would otherwise not ‘serve

and protect the child’s interest.’ [Citations.] By making the grant of reunification

services discretionary in these situations, the bypass provisions aim to

‘focus reunification efforts’ and resources on the cases ‘most likely to succeed’

with reunification. [Citation.]” (In re Jayden M. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1261, 1271.)

As relevant, section 361.5, subdivision (b) provides: “(b) “Reunification services 

need not be provided to a parent . . . when the court finds, by clear and convincing 

evidence . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (3) That the child or a sibling of the child has been previously 

adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of physical 

or sexual abuse, that following that adjudication the child had been removed from the 

custody of the child’s parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361, that the child has been 

returned to the custody of the parent or guardian from whom the child had been taken 

originally, and that the child is being removed pursuant to Section 361, due to additional 

physical or sexual abuse. [¶] . . . [¶] (7) That the parent is not receiving reunification 

services for a sibling . . . of the child pursuant to paragraph (3). . . .”
18

“If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a bypass provision 

applies, it must deny services unless the parent proves that services would be in the 

child’s best interests. (§ 361.5, subd. (c).) While the parent bears the burden of proof on

that issue, the department bears the burden of proving the threshold issue of whether a

bypass provision applies. [Citation.]” (In re T.R. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1140, 1148.) 

We review a juvenile court’s determination that a bypass provision applies for substantial

evidence. (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96 & fn. 6.)

Here, the court relied on subdivision (b)(3) of section 361.5, in denying Father 

reunification services for S.T. and J.T., and relied on subdivision (b)(7) of the statute in 

denying Father services for D.T. Substantial evidence supports the court’s 

determinations that these bypass provisions applied.

First, S.T. and J.T. are children described in subdivision (b)(3) of section 361.5. 

They are (1) siblings of D.T., a child previously adjudicated a dependent pursuant to 

section 300 as a result of physical or sexual abuse; (2) following “that adjudication,” S.T. 

and J.T. were removed from the custody of the mother, from whom D.T. was “originally”

taken in the section 300 adjudication for D.T.; (3) S.T. and D.T. were later returned to 

Father’s custody; and (4) S.T. and J.T. were later removed from Father’s custody due to 

“additional physical abuse” of S.T.

Second, D.T. is a child described in subdivision (b)(7) of section 361.5. That is, 

D.T. has a sibling—two siblings, S.T. and J..T.—for whom “the parent,” Father, was not 

receiving services pursuant to subdivision (b)(3). (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(7).)
19

Father does not seriously argue section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7), do 

not apply.

3

 Rather, Father’s opening brief states, “Father’s position is that even if the 

section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7) applied, it was in the best interests of the 

children for their father to receive reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision 

(c)(2).” We turn to this question.

B. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Concluding Reunification with Father Was 

Not in the Children’s Best Interest, and Bypassing Services for Father

Section 361.5, subdivision (c)(2), states: “The court shall not order reunification 

for a parent or guardian described in paragraph (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), 

(13), (14), (15), (16), or (17) of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.”

A juvenile court may consider several factors in determining whether reunification

would be in a child’s best interest, including 1) the parent’s current efforts, fitness, and

history, 2) the gravity of the problem that led to the dependency; 3) the strength of the

3

 As Father concedes, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3) has been interpreted as 

applying to a child who was subsequently physically abused even if that child was not the 

child who was abused in the prior adjudication. (In re D.F. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 538, 

545.) That is, the statute does not require the child for whom services “need not be 

provided” to be the child who was originally abused; rather, the child for whom services 

“need not be provided” may be a sibling of the child who was originally abused. (Ibid.) 

Put yet another way, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3) applies when, as here, the 

“additional” or subsequent abuse is to the sibling of the child originally abused. (S.V. v. 

Superior Court (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 671, 676.) This interpretation is in keeping with 

the apparent purpose of the statute, which is “to protect children against recidivist abusive 

parents.” (Ibid.) Further, the plain language of the statute does not require the parent for 

whom services “need not be provided” to be the perpetrator of the original abuse. 

(§ 361.5, subd. (b).)
20

parent-child and parent-caretaker bonds; and, 4) the child’s need for stability and

continuity, which is of “paramount concern.” (In re D.F., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at

p. 547; In re Ethan N. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 55, 66-68.) The burden is on the parent to

show that reunification would serve the best interest of the child. (In re A.G., supra, 207

Cal.App.4th 276, 281.) A best interest finding “also requires a likelihood that

reunification services will succeed. [Citation.] ‘In other words, there must be some

‘reasonable basis to conclude’ that reunification is possible before services are offered to

a parent who need not be provided them. [Citation].’ ” (Ibid.)

We review a juvenile court’s best interest finding under section 361.5, subdivision

(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. (See Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, supra, 139

Cal.App.4th at p. 96, fn. 6.) We will find no abuse of discretion if substantial evidence

shows the court could have reasonably concluded that reunification with the parent who

may be denied reunification services was not in the child’s best interest. (See Ramsden v.

Peterson (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 339, 345 [an abuse of discretion shown if the child

custody determination is not supported by substantial evidence].)

Father claims it was in the best interest of the children to reunify with Father; thus, 

it was in the children’s best interest to offer reunification services to Father at the August 

30, 2023 hearing. Father emphasizes that the bypass provisions of section 361.5, 

subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(7) applied only because D.T. suffered physical abuse in the 

mother’s care. Father points out he was not living with the family when D.T. was 

abused, and Father “was not part of any physical abuse” of D.T. Father also correctly 

observes that he cooperated with CFS from the beginning of the case in March 2022, he 
21

complied with his case plan, and the children enjoyed visiting Father and being with 

Father.

Father also points out that there was no permanent plan for the children—at the 

August 30, 2023 hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was 

a compelling reason not to set section 366.26 hearings for the children because 1) 

adoption was not in the children’s best interest at the time, and 2) there was no adult 

willing or able to be the children’s legal guardian.

Substantial evidence shows, however, that the court reasonably determined that

reunification with Father was not in the children’s best interest. (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).)

As the court noted, Father was aware from the beginning of the case that D.T. had been

“significant[ly]” physically abused, that S.T. and J.T. were removed “for the same risk,”

and that all of the children had experienced “significant trauma.” But Father’s physical

abuse of S.T. caused the children’s second removal in April 2023. As the court also

emphasized, the children feared going home and were told by Father “not to speak about

the abuse they were suffering” in Father’s care. The children also corroborated each

other’s accounts of the Father’s abuse.

As CFS argues, substantial evidence shows Father “had an extensive history of

violent and abusive behavior that was not ameliorated by his participation and completion

of reunification services.” Despite his participation in individual counseling, domestic

violence classes, and parenting classes, Father “continued to exhibit behavior that

evidenced aggression, violence, and a lack of impulse control throughout much of the

case. Indeed, Father yelled at the children during their unsupervised visit with Father in
22

July 2022. Moreover, Father continued to physically abuse S.T. despite referrals to

counseling. And when interviewed in May 2023, S.T. and J.T. said that they did not want

to live with Father because they would not feel safe in Father’s care, even if Father were

to get additional help.

In sum, the court reasonably determined that reunification was not in the

children’s best interest. Although we recognize and commend Father’s efforts at

reunification, the record shows there was no reasonable likelihood that reunification

would succeed. (In re A.G., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 281.) Thus, the court did not

abuse its discretion in denying reunification services for Father.

IV. DISPOSITION

The August 30, 2023 orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MENETREZ

J.