Opinion ID: 1449871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Disposition Hearing

Text: The focus of the disposition hearing was on whether reunification services should be provided to the parents. After hearing testimony by three witnesses, [4] the court heard closing arguments and announced its disposition. It declared Troy to be a dependent child of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (e) (see § 360, subd. (c)), and, finding there was a substantial danger to the physical health of the minor if he were returned home, the court removed Troy from his parents' custody and control under section 361, subdivision (b)(1). Pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5), the court found by clear and convincing evidence that the actions of each parent ... brought this matter under the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to section 300(e). [5] The court then proceeded in accord with section 361.5, subdivision (c), second paragraph. As noted above, that section provides that in cases such as this one reunification services should not be provided unless competent testimony supports a finding that (i) such services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child, or (ii) failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to the parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (c), 2d par.) The court addressed and summarily rejected the second alternative condition, noting that the parents' counsel had not even attempted to argue that Troy had become attached to his parents. It then considered whether reunification services were likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of Troy. [6] The court found parents had continuous access to various social services through the Navy, and yet failed to use those services, or take Troy to the hospital, even though he had grown severely emaciated. The court summarized the experts' predictions concerning the potential for successful reunification services, and concluded the evidence disclosed no likelihood that [the parents'] mind-set, given all the factors considered, can be changed by any services. The court expressed the opinion that because the parents had not demonstrated any recognition of or willingness to deal with their problems, compelled reunification services would not likely ... prevent reabuse or continued neglect of [Troy] by either of his parents and, accordingly, declined to order reunification services. Pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (f), the court set a hearing under section 366.26 for December 1989, to select and implement a long-term plan for Troy, and ordered DSS to prepare an adoption assessment report (§ 361.5, subd. (g)). Two weeks later John Z. filed a notice of appeal from the foregoing disposition order, asserting insufficiency of evidence and abuse of discretion. (No. D010733.) Sandra Z. later joined in that appeal. Thereafter the parents became homeless, and began living in various shelters; Sandra Z. gave birth to an ill baby that tested positive for traces of cocaine; and both parents pleaded guilty to felony child abuse charges.