Filed 9/26/22 In re M.N. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re M.N. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F084160

(Super. Ct. No. JVDP-21-000159, 

JVDP-21-000160, JVDP-21-000161)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Annette 

Rees, Judge.

Teri Yin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
2.

Ma.N. (mother) and M.A. (father) are the parents of M.N. (born April 2010), D.N. 

(born June 2015), and I.N. (born October 2016) (collectively, the children). Father 

appeals the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding made at the Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e)1six-month review hearing. 

He contends the court’s finding that the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency 

(agency) offered him reasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Specifically, he argues the agency’s failure to address his language barrier prevented him 

from participating in critical aspects of his case plan until near the end of the six-month 

review period. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Referral and Detention

On July 28, 2021, the agency received a referral alleging M.N. called law 

enforcement to report that mother and father were fighting. Law enforcement called 

father and he stated everything was okay, but that mother was intoxicated and breaking 

windows. Law enforcement responded to the family’s home, but no one was there. The 

front window of the house was shattered and there was blood on the side of the house 

leading to the front door. Law enforcement forced entry into the house where it found a 

trail of blood inside. A neighbor reported father ran out with the children after the 

altercation. The parents denied the altercation occurred in front of the children. M.N., 

mother, and father gave conflicting narratives of the incident. The agency’s investigation 

revealed mother and father engaged in severe ongoing domestic violence in front of the 

children, mother appeared to suffer from mental health problems, father had anger 

management issues, and both parents were suffering from substance abuse. The agency 

subsequently filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children, and they were detained 

and placed in foster care.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3.

On August 5, 2021, father appeared at the detention hearing with a Spanish 

interpreter. The juvenile court found the children were persons described by section 300 

and ordered them detained. The parents were ordered supervised visitation and a weekly 

phone call. Father was provided with service referrals and contact information for the 

placement specialist and visitation center in Spanish. Father’s service referrals included a 

parenting program, individual counseling, a domestic violence offender program, and an 

anger management program at Sierra Vista Child & Family Services (Sierra Vista). 

Additionally, he was referred to a substance abuse assessment at Behavioral Health and 

Recovery Services. The court set a jurisdiction and disposition hearing for the following 

month.

B. Jurisdiction and Disposition

The jurisdiction and disposition report outlined father’s efforts to participate in 

services. On August 6, 2021, the agency sent father’s referral to Sierra Vista, and resent 

it on September 1, 2021, but he had not completed an intake appointment. Regarding 

progress in substance abuse services, father completed a substance abuse assessment on 

August 31, 2021. He tested positive for alcohol and was referred to a Spanish language 

outpatient substance treatment program. The agency noted it made multiple contacts 

with father in August regarding his case plan.

The agency reported that father continued to minimize his domestic violence 

problems, but he acknowledged he needed domestic violence services. His domestic 

violence problems were influenced by his alcohol abuse. He had a substantial substance 

abuse related criminal history that included several offenses for driving under the 

influence. The agency recommended the juvenile court find that reasonable efforts had 

been made to prevent the children’s need for removal and that father had made good 

progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement. It further 

recommended the court order the children removed from the parents’ physical custody 

and grant father reunification services.
4.

The agency prepared a case plan indicating the agency was responsible for making 

appropriate community referrals, conducting a child and family team meeting at least 

once every six months, and making one monthly compliance contact with father to ensure 

case plan engagement, progress, and compliance. Father’s responsibilities included 

attending, actively participating, and successfully completing anger management classes, 

individual counseling, a domestic violence perpetrator program, and a parenting program 

with a minimum of three parent/child labs at Sierra Vista or another program approved by 

the social worker. The parent/child labs were to be initiated after father completed 

parenting group sessions and upon the recommendation of the parenting education 

clinician. Additionally, he was required to participate in a substance abuse assessment 

and random drug testing. 

On September 22, 2021, father appeared at the jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing. Father’s counsel made an offer of proof that if father were called to testify, he 

would state that “he [was] actively engaged in services and look[ed] forward to 

reunifying with [the] children.” Father’s counsel submitted on the agency’s report, 

noting that father agreed with the recommendations. Additionally, father’s counsel 

requested the court set a 90-day review hearing due to father’s language barrier. He said, 

“I want to make sure my client is actively engaged in Spanish-speaking services. I am 

going to request a 90-day progress review to review visitation and progress.” The court 

found the petition true and that continued placement was necessary. It found the agency 

had complied with the case plan by making reasonable efforts to return the children home 

and that father’s progress had been good. It granted father reunification services and set a 

90-day progress review hearing.

C. 90-Day Progress Review

On December 14, 2021, the juvenile court held a progress review hearing. In 

preparation for the hearing, the agency filed documents detailing father’s progress in 

services. A letter from Sierra Vista indicated father was referred to services on August 4, 
5.

2021, but did not apply for services until November 9, 2021. Sierra Vista conducted his 

intake on November 23, 2021.2 The agency reported father had not been assigned a 

clinician for the anger management, individual counseling, domestic violence, and parent 

education programs at Sierra Vista. Regarding substance abuse services, father had been 

admitted to an outpatient treatment program and was participating in Spanish-speaking 

groups. In October and November 2021, father tested positive for alcohol.

The court found father had made “fairly good” progress in services and ordered 

the previous orders to remain in full force and effect.

D. Six-Month Review 

The six-month status review report indicated mother and father were still living 

together and were in a relationship. Both parents wished to reunify with the children and 

stated they would continue to engage in services. The agency reported it had monthly 

contact with father to ensure case plan compliance. During those contacts, the social 

worker and father reviewed the case plan and discussed client objectives and 

responsibilities.

Regarding father’s efforts, the report indicated that on February 17, 2022, he 

completed the second half of intake at Sierra Vista. A week prior to that, Sierra Vista had 

contacted the agency and reported that father had not been assigned to a clinician earlier 

because it did not have a Spanish-speaking clinician available. On February 25, 2022, 

father began participating in parenting groups. As for substance abuse services, father 

was actively participating in group sessions and engaged when called upon, but tested 

positive for alcohol in February 2022. Additionally, father was participating in 

supervised visitation with the children. 

2 The six-month status review report clarified that November 23, 2021, was the date 

father completed the first half of intake. He completed the second half of intake on 

February 17, 2022. 
6.

The agency summarized that father had not completed his case plan goals; 

however, it acknowledged that he had been unable to begin services sooner due to the 

unavailability of a Spanish-speaking clinician at Sierra Vista. The agency concluded that 

the parents had received six months of reunification services and had not yet addressed or 

mitigated the issues that led to the children’s removal. They had not demonstrated their 

ability to stay sober, or that they could safely and appropriately care for the children. The 

agency recommended both parents continue receiving reunification services. It further 

recommended the juvenile court find it had made reasonable efforts to return the children 

to their parents, and that father’s progress had been poor. 

On March 15, 2022, father appeared at the six-month review hearing with a 

Spanish interpreter. Father’s counsel asked the juvenile court to make a lack of 

reasonable services finding on behalf of father. He argued the lack of a Spanish-speaking 

clinician had delayed father’s progress in services. County counsel argued that services 

were reasonable under the circumstances, noting that father was now engaged in services. 

The court denied father’s counsel’s request, stating:

“I do find in reviewing the report and the attachments that 

reasonable services were offered, and certainly the Agency sought to 

address any barriers, such as language barriers, as soon as possible, giving 

[father] every opportunity to engage in those services, which he is now 

certainly doing.”

The court thus found that the agency complied with the case plan by making 

reasonable efforts to return the children. The court further found father had made poor 

progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating placement, ordered father to continue 

participating in reunification services, and set a 12-month review hearing. 

On March 30, 2022, father filed a notice of appeal.
7.

DISCUSSION

A. Appealability

As a preliminary matter, father argues that his challenge to the juvenile court’s 

reasonable services finding is cognizable on appeal. Alternatively, father requests that 

this court exercise its discretion to treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. 

Respondent does not object to this court reviewing this matter as either an appeal or a 

petition for writ of mandate. For reasons stated below, we find father’s challenge to the 

juvenile court’s reasonable services finding cognizable on appeal.

“A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same 

manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order 

after judgment.” (§ 395, subd. (a)(1); Dwayne P. v. Superior Court (2002) 103 

Cal.App.4th 247, 259 [“the court’s dispositional and following orders are directly 

appealable, with the exception of an order scheduling a selection and implementation 

hearing under section 366.26”].) “Generally, a parent who is aggrieved by an order after 

judgment in a juvenile dependency proceeding may take an appeal from that order.

(§ 395.) ‘To be aggrieved, a party must have a legally cognizable immediate and 

substantial interest which is injuriously affected by the court’s decision.’ ” (In re Holly 

B. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1265.) “For purposes of appellate standing in 

dependency cases, a parent is aggrieved by a juvenile court order that injuriously affects 

the parent-child relationship.” (In re Paul W. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 37, 62.)

In In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687 (T.G.), the court reasoned that “a parent 

or child can [be] aggrieved by a reasonable services finding at the time of the six-month 

review hearing if it is not supported by substantial evidence. Such a finding can put the 

interests of parents and children in reunification at a significant procedural disadvantage.” 

(Id. at p. 695.) The court identified three procedural disadvantages. 

“First, reunification services are generally limited to 12 months for a child over the 

age of three years.” (T.G., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 695.) “Second, a heightened 
8.

showing is required at the time of the 12-month review in order to continue services to 

the statutory maximum of 18 months. ... ‘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 his or her parent ... within the extended time period or that reasonable 

services have not been provided to the parent.’ ” (Ibid.) To find there is a “ ‘substantial 

probability’ ” of return to the parents, “the court must find there was consistent and 

regular visitation by the parent and ‘significant progress in resolving problems that led to 

the child’s removal.’ (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(B).) In addition, the court must find the 

parent ‘has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or 

her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and 

emotional well-being, and special needs.’ ” (Ibid.) “[I]t would be significantly more 

difficult for a parent to either reunify with a child or to satisfy the heightened showing 

required for a continuation of reunification services if the parent was not provided with 

reasonable services during the first six months of the reunification period.” (Ibid.) Third, 

“a parent whose services are terminated at the 12-month review period based in part on 

an erroneous finding of reasonable services during the first six months of reunification, 

would be unable to challenge that finding by way of an appeal from a subsequent adverse 

order at the time of the 12-month review hearing.” (Id. at pp. 695–696.) 

We find the reasoning in T.G. persuasive and will reach the merits of father’s 

appeal.

B. Reasonableness of Reunification Services

Father contends he was not provided with reasonable services during the 

six-month review period because the agency failed to address the language barrier at 

Sierra Vista. He argues that because Sierra Vista did not have a Spanish-speaking 

clinician, he was unable to participate in critical aspects of his case plan until late into the 

six-month review period.
9.

If a child is not returned to his or her parent at the six-month review hearing, the 

juvenile court “shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the 

parent ... in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and continued 

custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(8); 

§ 366, subd. (a)(1)(B) [at each status review hearing the court shall determine “[t]he 

extent of the agency’s compliance with the case plan in making reasonable efforts ... to 

return the child to a safe home”].) “ ‘A finding that reasonable reunification services 

have been provided must be made upon clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.]’ ” 

(Serena M. v. Superior Court (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 659, 674.)

“The ‘ “adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Agency’s] 

efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.” [Citation.] To support a 

finding reasonable services were offered or provided, “the 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.” ’ ” (T.J. v. Superior Court (2018) 

21 Cal.App.5th 1229, 1240 (T.J.).) “The standard is not whether the services provided 

were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were 

reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) 

The remedy for failing to offer or provide reasonable services is to extend the 

reunification period and continue services. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 

975 (Alvin R.).) We review the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding for 

substantial evidence. (Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 

419–420.) 

According to the record, the agency wasted no time in arranging services for 

father. On August 5, 2021, the agency provided father with service referrals at the 

detention hearing and gave him the information in Spanish. The agency sent the referrals 
10.

to Sierra Vista on August 6, 2021,3 and again on September 1, 2021. Father did not 

apply for services at Sierra Vista until November 9, 2021. After receiving his 

application, Sierra Vista promptly conducted the first half of intake on November 23, 

2021. Thus, the delay from August 6 to November 9, 2021, was attributable to father’s 

own actions.4

The following month, on December 14, 2021, the juvenile court conducted a 

90-day review hearing as requested by father’s counsel to ensure father was receiving 

Spanish-speaking services. At that time, it had only been approximately one month since 

father had submitted the application to Sierra Vista and intake was initiated. The agency 

filed documents with the court indicating it knew father had not been assigned a clinician 

at Sierra Vista for anger management, individual counseling, domestic violence, or 

parenting education. Thus, at that point, the agency was only aware of the one-month 

delay. There is no indication the agency knew the delay would go on to last until 

February 2022 as a result of an unavailable Spanish-speaking clinician.

The record shows the agency next became aware of the continued delay on 

February 10, 2022, when Sierra Vista contacted the agency and reported that father had 

not been assigned to a clinician earlier because it did not have a Spanish-speaking 

clinician available. However, a week later, on February 17, 2022, Sierra Vista completed 

father’s second half of intake and he began parenting groups that same month. In its 

six-month review report, the agency acknowledged that the language barrier prevented 

father from beginning services at Sierra Vista sooner. Notably, father did not fault the 

agency for the delay. At the six-month review hearing, father’s counsel stated, “[I]t is 

3 The agency reported it faxed father’s referral to Sierra Vista on August 6, 2021, 

but a letter from Sierra Vista indicates the referral date was August 4, 2021.

4 We acknowledge that although father was provided with referral information at 

the detention hearing, the six-month review period runs from the date of the disposition 

hearing. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
11.

certainly not [the social worker’s] fault. I don’t blame him one bit, and I know [father] is 

doing what he needs to do to reunify.”

While delays in the provision of services have certainly been found to support a 

finding of no reasonable services, the cases cited by father—T.J., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th 

1229 and Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 962—are distinguishable.

T.J. involved an intellectually disabled mother who experienced significant delays 

in accessing services. (T.J., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1232–1233.) The appellate 

court summarized that, “the Agency put Mother in a holding pattern that resulted in a 

wait of nearly 11 months after her children were removed from her physical custody 

before she was provided with an individual therapist; it failed completely to provide her 

with help for anger management; it delayed almost eight months from physical removal 

in providing services from [the provider] and never delivered ongoing services; it failed 

to give her help with practical independent living skills; and it failed to provide her with 

housing assistance.” (Id. at p. 1248.) The appellate court concluded the agency did not 

provide reasonable services. (Ibid.) Here, in contrast, the agency quickly secured 

services to address all of father’s needs. The agency did not merely place his name on a 

waiting list and then allow nearly eight months to a year to pass before he had access to 

those services. “Clearly, the delay in [father’s services at Sierra Vista] rendered the 

services provided imperfect, but rarely will services be perfect.” (Melinda K. v. Superior 

Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1159.)

In Alvin R. the father challenged the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable 

reunification services had been provided in advance of the six-month review hearing. 

(Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 965.) The juvenile court had assumed jurisdiction 

over the child upon a sustained finding that the father physically disciplined him. (Id. at 

p. 966.) The father was ordered to complete a parenting class and individual counseling, 

and the child was ordered to complete eight individual counseling sessions before they 

could commence conjoint counseling. (Id. at pp. 966–967.) The juvenile court 
12.

conducted an interim review hearing prior to the six-month review hearing, where it 

learned the father had completed the parenting class and was engaged in individual 

counseling, but that the child had only attended one individual counseling session for 

reasons outside the father’s control and refused to visit father. (Id. at pp. 967–968.) The 

juvenile court acknowledged that conjoint counseling was critical in preparing the child 

to agree to visitation. (Ibid.) As a result, the juvenile court eliminated the requirement 

that the child participate in eight individual counseling sessions before conjoint 

counseling could occur and suggested to the department that it include an explanation of 

its reasonable efforts with regard to the child’s individual counseling sessions in its next 

report. (Id. at p. 968.) The department was well aware of the issues preventing the child 

from participating in individual counseling and did very little to address the issues. (Id.

at p. 973.) Nonetheless, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found the 

department had provided reasonable reunification efforts. (Id. at p. 970.)

The appellate court ruled that the department’s failure to ensure the child attended 

individual counseling, and the apparent effect the lack of counseling had on the child’s 

willingness to visit with father, conclusively undermined the juvenile court’s reasonable 

services finding. (Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 971–972.) The appellate court 

noted, “Father had done all that was required of him under the plan. Thus, one service, 

getting [the child] into eight sessions of individual therapy, stood in the way of all 

measures remaining under the reunification plan, and the [d]epartment submitted no 

evidence of having made a good faith effort to bring those sessions about.” (Id. at 

p. 973.) Moreover, the department ignored the juvenile court’s order eliminating the 

eight-session requirement in an effort to speed things along. (Ibid.) “[T]he 

[d]epartment’s first interim review report, filed nearly five months after reunification 

efforts should have begun, ... did not even address its efforts to get [the child] into 

counseling. (Id. at p. 972.) The appellate court, therefore, reversed the reasonable 

services finding. (Id. at p. 975.) Here, the agency addressed its reasonable efforts in its 
13.

various reports leading up to the six-month review hearing, which indicated that father’s 

lack of progress in services at Sierra Vista were partially due to his own actions because 

he submitted his application three months after the initial referral was made. In Alvin R., 

the delay was not attributable to the father in any sense and the department had ignored 

the juvenile court’s attempts to speed things along. Additionally, in the present case, 

father had not done all that was required of him under his case plan. Father had tested 

positive for alcohol several times. His ability to stay sober was a critical component of 

his plan because the domestic violence between him and mother was exacerbated by his 

substance abuse. Thus, the services he was waiting to complete at Sierra Vista did not 

“[stand] in the way of all measures remaining under the reunification plan” as in Alvin R. 

(Id. at p. 973.) For these reasons we find Alvin R. inapposite. 

As noted above, the remedy for providing services that are not reasonable is to 

continue them. Here, the juvenile court ordered the department to continue providing 

services to father to the 12-month review hearing. Therefore, even assuming the court 

erred in finding father was provided reasonable services, father was already granted an 

additional six months of services.

We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s reasonable services 

finding at the six-month review hearing.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.