Filed 3/26/21 Anthony D. v. S.C. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ANTHONY D.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Respondent;

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

 A161883

 (San Francisco City & County

 Super. Ct. No. JD20-3304)

A.D. (Father) challenges an order of the San Francisco Superior Court, 

Juvenile Division, made January 22, 2021, in which the juvenile court 

declined to provide Father with reunification services and set a hearing 

under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 to select a permanent 

plan for the minor, J.D. (Minor). Father objects to the finding that he is not 

entitled to reunification services. We conclude substantial evidence supports 

the denial of reunification services and deny Father’s petition for an 

extraordinary writ on the merits.

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

I. BACKGROUND

Minor and her mother (Mother) tested positive for methamphetamines, 

cannabis, and opiates at the time of Minor’s birth. Two days later, the San 

Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition under 

section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The juvenile court held a contested 

detention hearing and ordered that Minor be detained. 

Prior to the current petition, the Agency removed Minor’s sibling, M.D., 

from both parents due to general neglect. Father was offered reunification 

services as to M.D., which included parenting classes, participation in 

individual therapy, and a substance abuse assessment. Father objected to 

participating in therapy and did not complete the substance abuse 

assessment. He subsequently failed to reunify with M.D. and those services 

were terminated. 

With regard to Minor, the Agency’s disposition report recommended 

denying reunification services to Father because he “has not completed any 

services or demonstrated behavioral changes (continues to be hostile and 

resistant to suggestions or advice regarding parenting skills) and continues to 

lack protective capacities.” Specifically, the report stated Father “refused to 

meet with the [social worker] regarding the family’s current situation,” 

refused to participate in virtual visitation with Minor, and attempts to 

contact Father went unanswered. The Agency also noted Father has “not 

benefited from previous interventions” to address parenting skills. 

The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing. At that 

hearing, Father testified he was unaware of Mother’s drug use during 

pregnancy and he understood “it is terrible.” Father testified that he and 

Mother had “talked about addressing the issues,” and she was willing to 

move out of the family home. He also testified he was working fewer hours so 
3

there was a low risk of him leaving Minor without proper supervision. When 

asked whether he would participate in therapy, Father responded, “I am not 

opposed to it, but I don’t see, like, how that has to do with being able to 

parent.” However, he also indicated he would participate in services if 

provided. 

Following the hearing, the juvenile court sustained certain 

jurisdictional allegations as to Father under section 300, subdivision (b). 

Specifically, Father had been “unable to provide proper care, shelter, and 

supervision for [Minor] [and] as a result [Father] has failed to protect [Minor]

from abuse and neglect from the mother, which place [Minor] at risk for 

further neglect and abuse.” Father also “has a history of leaving [Minor]’s 

oldest sibling, [M.D.] . . . in care of the mother despite knowing the mother 

has an extensive substance abuse problem that impacts her ability to safely 

care for the child, which puts [Minor] at risk of neglect and abuse.” The court 

also sustained allegations under section 300, subdivision (j), that M.D. is 

“placed out of their care due to general neglect and parent’s failure to 

supervise, protect and provide for the child,” Father’s reunification services 

were terminated, and a section 366.26 hearing was scheduled. The court 

found Father had made minimal to no effort to address the issues giving rise 

to Minor’s detention and denied reunification services pursuant to section 

361.5, subdivision (b)(10). Father subsequently filed the current petition. 

II. DISCUSSION

Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying him

services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), because he 

acknowledged the problems which led to the removal of M.D. We disagree 

and deny the petition. 
4

A. Relevant Law

“[U]p until the time the section 366.26 hearing is set, the parent’s 

interest in reunification is given precedence over the child’s need for stability 

and permanency.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.) The juvenile

court is required to order family reunification services whenever a child is 

removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian unless that court 

finds by clear and convincing evidence that one of the enumerated exceptions 

set forth in section 361.5, subdivision (b) applies. (§ 361.5, subds. (a) & (b); 

Rosa S. v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188.) “These 

enumerated ‘bypass’ provisions are the specific instances in which the 

Legislature has recognized ‘that it may be fruitless to provide reunification 

services,’ and once the court has found one of these specific instances 

applicable, ‘the general rule favoring reunification is replaced by a legislative 

assumption that offering services would be an unwise use of governmental 

resources.’ ” (Melissa R. v. Superior Court (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 816, 821.)

Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) authorizes the court to deny 

reunification services to a parent if “the court ordered termination of 

reunification services for any siblings . . . of the child because the parent . . .

failed to reunify with the sibling” after the sibling was removed, and the 

parent “has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems 

that led to removal of the sibling . . . .” We review the juvenile court’s order 

denying reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b), for 

substantial evidence: “[W]e must decide if the evidence is reasonable, 

credible, and of solid value, such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the 

court’s order was proper based on clear and convincing evidence.” (Curtis F. 

v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.)
5

If the juvenile court finds section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) applies, 

then the court “shall not order reunification [for the parent] unless the court 

finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best 

interest of the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).) “We review a juvenile court’s 

best interest determination in this context for abuse of discretion.” (Jennifer 

S. v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1113, 1124–1125.)

B. Analysis

Father contends the juvenile court erred in finding that section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(10) applied because he made reasonable efforts to treat the 

problems that led to Minor’s sibling, M.D., being removed from his care. In 

support of his position, Father cites to his testimony in which he 

acknowledged the risk posed by Mother’s substance abuse and her need for 

treatment, stated Mother would move out of the family home, claimed he 

would be a more present parent, and expressed a willingness to engage in 

services. His argument is not persuasive.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Father

has not made reasonable efforts to address the problems that led to M.D.’s

removal. The record indicates M.D. was removed due to Mother’s substance 

abuse and mental health issues and Father’s inability to protect M.D. from 

Mother. Father was ordered to complete a parenting class, substance abuse 

assessment, and therapy, but failed to do so and reunification services were 

terminated. 

Here, Minor was removed due to identical concerns. Rather than 

acknowledge those concerns and work toward a different outcome, Father’s 

conduct indicates a complete lack of awareness and engagement. Father 

refused to speak to the social worker at the hospital after Minor tested 

positive for methamphetamine, opiates, and cannabis at birth. He failed to 
6

return any telephone calls or texts sent by the Agency’s social worker 

regarding Minor. And he refused to participate in virtual visitation with 

Minor. Moreover, Father denied the prior allegations that led to M.D.’s 

removal and testified he had not, in fact, left M.D. unsupervised with Mother 

and “that was a totally false accusation and a lie.” As summarized by the 

Agency, Father “failed to benefit from pervious interventions,” “refused to 

meet with the [social worker] regarding the family’s current situation[,] and 

was unable to demonstrate his ability to provide care and protection for 

[Minor].” 

Father’s testimony at the disposition hearing regarding his willingness 

to protect Minor was undermined by his repeated failure to acknowledge 

Mother’s substance abuse problems. He stated the Agency had made 

“accusation[s]” Mother was using drugs, but repeatedly denied ever seeing 

Mother using or on drugs. When challenged about his relationship with 

Mother, Father responded by calling the petition allegations “made-up.” 

Similarly, Father continued to express reluctance about the need for therapy, 

stating he “do[es]n’t see the reason” and is “kind of still against” therapy 

because he is “not too comfortable just talking to somebody about my 

problems like that.” The only concrete step Father identified taking was 

speaking with Mother about her moving out of the family home while she 

sought substance abuse treatment. Mother had not, however, actually left

the family home, the record did not identify where Mother would live once 

she left the family home, and the parents reiterated their intent to stay 

married. 

The Agency also expressed concern Father had “failed to demonstrate 

that he has capacity to independently care for an infant.” In response, 

Father stated his lighter work schedule would allow him to better supervise 
7

Minor. However, he offered no concrete plan for doing so apart from taking 

Minor “to the park” while Mother was “doing her own thing.” He did not 

identify any resources he could utilize to ensure his ability to parent

independently. Nor did he explain how he would continue to do so if, for 

example, he obtained more demanding employment in the future. 

While “[t]he ‘reasonable effort to treat’ standard ‘is not synonymous 

with “cure,” ’ ” “[t]o be reasonable, the parent’s efforts must be more than 

‘lackadaisical or half-hearted.’ ” (K.C. v. Superior Court (2010) 

182 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1393.) Here, Father demonstrated no meaningful 

effort to address the issues that led to the prior removal of M.D. Nor has he

raised any argument that reunification is in the best interests of Minor. 

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that 

section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) applies, and the court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Father reunification services.

III. DISPOSITION

Father’s petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. Our 

decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rules 8.450(a), 8.490(b)(2)(A).).
8

MARGULIES, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

BANKE, J.

A161883

Anthony D. v. Superior Court