Opinion ID: 2640889
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Participation Is Voluntary

Text: (7) To the extent reunification orders intrude upon a parent's liberty, the Legislature has determined these intrusions are justified by the need to protect children and enable their safe return to competent parental care whenever possible. However, it is not the court's role to force a parent to participate in services. It is . . . well established that `[r]eunification services are voluntary, and cannot be forced on an unwilling or indifferent parent. [Citation.]' ( In re Jonathan R. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1220 [259 Cal.Rptr. 863].) ( In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 680]; see also In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5 [234 Cal.Rptr. 84] [there is no requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions].) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(14) explicitly states that reunification services need not be provided to a parent who wishes to forgo them. [7] This rule makes sense. While reunification is the preferred outcome when it serves the interests of both parent and child, no interest is well served by compelling inadequate parents to shoulder responsibilities they are unwilling to accept or unable to discharge. Nevertheless, the Agency contends a parent's participation in reunification services becomes mandatory if services are ordered at the dispositional hearing. In other words, according to the Agency, once services are ordered a parent cannot change her mind. She must participate, or risk a contempt order and possible incarceration. The Agency cites no support for this argument beyond the statement in section 361.5, subdivision (a) that, [w]hen counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent . . . shall be ordered to participate in those services . . . . (Italics added.) The Agency contends this requirement that parental participation be ordered, combined with the court's power to enforce its orders with contempt proceedings (§ 213), indicates the Legislature intended to enable the juvenile court to use contempt sanctions to secure compliance with its reunification orders. We decline to adopt this novel reading of the statutes. By providing that a parent shall be ordered to participate in services, section 361.5, subdivision (a) imposes a duty on the juvenile court to order participation as part of the parent's reunification plan unless the court finds such participation would be inappropriate or potentially harmful to the minor. This language in itself does not impose a mandatory duty on the parent to participate in services.