Court Opinion

ID: 9894170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:04:06.559243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:12.420453
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/31/23 In re W.S. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

 In re W.S. et al., Persons Coming                          B327089
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                         (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                     Super. Ct. Nos. 19CCJP05396H-J)
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
           v.

 B.S.,
           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Charles Q. Clay, Judge. Conditionally
affirmed and remanded with directions.
      Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   _________________________
                         INTRODUCTION
      B.S. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional
order, adopting the Department of Children and Family Services’
(DCFS) recommended case plan, which required Father to
participate in reunification services. Father argues the juvenile
court abused its discretion by adopting DCFS’s case plan without
determining whether the recommended reunification services
were available to Father at Men’s Central Jail where Father was
incarcerated at the time of disposition.
      While we agree with Father that the juvenile court was
required to consider Father’s incarceration in adopting an
appropriate case plan, the record is ambiguous as to when Father
was incarcerated and whether he remained incarcerated after the
dispositional hearing. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain
whether the case plan was reasonable under the circumstances.
As such, we conditionally affirm the dispositional order, and
remand the matter with instructions to the juvenile court to
reconsider Father’s case plan based on Father’s incarceration
status. If Father remains incarcerated, the juvenile court shall
vacate its existing dispositional order and adopt a revised case
plan that is tailored to Father’s circumstances. If, however,
Father is no longer incarcerated and the availability of those
reunification services has since become moot, the current
dispositional order and case plan shall remain in effect.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      The family consists of Father, S.S. (Mother), eight-year-old
W.S., six-year-old N.S., and four-year-old K.S. The children also
have two siblings who are not subject to this appeal.
      The instant case was initiated on November 4, 2022, after
the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) executed a

                                 2
search warrant at Father’s home two days earlier based on
information that Father was selling narcotics and illegally
manufacturing firearms. LASD found Mother, N.S., and K.S.
present in the home, which was in an unsanitary and unsafe
condition. During its search of the home, LASD recovered a
pound of methamphetamine and a firearm, which were in plain
view and easily accessible to the children. LASD contacted
DCFS.
      A DCFS social worker assessed the home and found the
conditions deplorable, noting the entire home smelled of feces,
was overwhelmed with flies, had no working electricity, and had
numerous other dangerous conditions making it unsafe for the
children. The social worker interviewed the children, who
described instances of domestic violence between the parents and
how Father made guns at home.
      On November 4, 2022, DCFS filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code1 section 300 petition, alleging the parents
created a detrimental and unsanitary home environment, and
had a history of domestic violence and drug abuse that
endangered the children’s safety.
      On November 7, 2022, the juvenile court held an initial
detention hearing. The children were detained from the parents
and the juvenile court set arraignment for November 28, 2022, a
pretrial release investigation hearing for December 15, 2022, and
adjudication for January 5, 2023. Father was appointed counsel
but was not present at the hearing.

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

                                  3
       On November 28, 2022, the juvenile court arraigned the
parents. Father’s counsel appeared via videoconferencing, and
explained Father had tried to call into the hearing that morning
but was unsuccessful. After Father’s counsel waived reading of
the petition and entered a general denial, she requested a
visitation order for a minimum of two weekly monitored visits for
two hours upon DCFS’s contact with Father and a written
visitation schedule. The juvenile court granted Father’s request.
       On December 15, 2022, the juvenile court held a pretrial
release investigation hearing. Father appeared with counsel via
videoconferencing. Father complained DCFS had failed to
comply with the juvenile court’s visitation order, indicating he
had received only one telephone visit with the children since
detention. He again requested a written visitation schedule,
including holiday visitations. Father also requested in-person
visits and a DCFS monitor for the upcoming holidays, since
Mother’s relatives did not want to be monitors. The juvenile
court granted Father’s requests, and ordered DCFS to arrange a
visit with Father as soon as practicable.
       In its December 15, 2022 jurisdictional and dispositional
report, DCFS indicated it had not been able to contact Father for
an interview, but stated it would make best efforts to interview
him before the January 5, 2023 adjudication hearing, and would
file a supplemental report as to the contents of the interview.
The report recommended monitored visitation with a DCFS
monitor for Father. It also recommended Father participate in
individual counseling, parenting classes, a domestic violence
program, and substance abuse rehabilitation and drug testing.
       On January 5, 2023, the juvenile court called the matter for
adjudication. Father was not present, and his counsel indicated

                                 4
Father had recently been incarcerated. The juvenile court
granted Father’s counsel’s request for a continuance and an in-
and-out order to secure Father’s appearance at the next hearing,
which was set for February 8, 2023.
       On January 24, 2023, DCFS filed a last minute
information, indicating a social worker attempted to interview
Father on January 17, 2023, and found through LASD’s Inmate
Information Center that Father was being housed at an
outpatient program at Men’s Central Jail, and that Father had a
scheduled court appearance, making him unavailable to
interview during the social worker’s work hours. DCFS again
indicated it would make best efforts to interview Father prior to
the February 8, 2023 adjudication hearing.
       On February 7, 2023, DCFS filed another last minute
information, indicating three social workers went to Men’s
Central Jail to interview Father, however, they were informed
that Father was unavailable to interview because he was in
quarantine.
       On February 8, 2023, the juvenile court held a combined
adjudication and dispositional hearing. Father was present with
counsel.
       The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered the
children removed from the home. It further ordered reunification
services for the parents.
       Father objected to the recommended case plan, asserting it
was unrealistic given he had been incarcerated since January 3,
2023. He indicated DCFS had yet to interview him and had
failed to inquire with the Men’s Central Jail as to what
reunification services were available to him. He also asked the
juvenile court to admonish DCFS because Father’s attempts to

                                5
contact social workers were ignored, and he had not received a
single in-person visit since the children were detained. In
response, DCFS assured the juvenile court that there were
“protocols in place” for it to make sure services were available to
Father, and asked the juvenile court to adopt the recommended
case plan.
      After a discussion held off the record, the juvenile court
adopted the recommended case plan and ordered DCFS to
provide Father with reunification services. It ordered Father to
participate in: a full drug and alcohol program, weekly random
and on-demand drug testing, a 52-week domestic violence
program, parenting instruction, and individual counseling.
The juvenile court also ordered DCFS to ensure Father received
weekly phone or video visits while Father was in custody, and
two 2-hour visits per week with a DCFS-approved monitor when
Father was released.
      The juvenile court set a six-month review hearing for
August 9, 2023. After a discussion off the record, the juvenile
court granted Father’s request for an in-and-out order for that
date, but acknowledged that it may not be necessary if Father
was released before then.
      Father appealed.
                            DISCUSSION
      Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by
ordering him to participate in various reunification services
before DCFS had determined whether those services were
available at Men’s Central Jail, where Father was in custody at
the time of disposition.2

2     Father requested judicial notice of the juvenile court’s
“Indian Child Welfare Act attorney order filed June 7, 2023,”

                                 6
I.    Governing law and standard of review
      “A reunification plan must be tailored to the particular
individual and family, addressing the unique facts of that family.
[Citation.] [DCFS] is required to make a good faith effort to
address the parent’s problems through services, to maintain
reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan,
and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas
where compliance proves difficult.” (Katie V. v. Superior Court
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598–599.) “To support a finding
reasonable services were offered or provided, ‘the record should
show that [DCFS] 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 . . . .’
[Citation.] ‘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.’ ”
(Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426.)
      “If the parent or guardian is incarcerated, . . . the court
shall order reasonable services unless the court determines, by
clear and convincing evidence, those services would be
detrimental to the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).) “[DCFS] must
preliminarily identify services available to an incarcerated
parent. [Citation.] It cannot delegate to an incarcerated parent
the responsibility for identifying such services. [Citation.]
[DCFS’s] employees may not simply conclude that reunification

however, Father has not explained the relevance of that order to
this appeal. Therefore, we deny the request.

                                7
efforts are not feasible on the sole ground the parent is
incarcerated.” (Mark N. v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County
Dept. of Children and Family Services) (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th
996, 1012 (Mark N.).)
       We review the juvenile court’s dispositional order,
requiring a parent to participate in reunification services, for
abuse of discretion. (In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 624.)
II.    Analysis
       As an initial matter, we agree with Father’s general
contention—that DCFS did not meet its initial burden to
preliminarily identify services available to Father and, therefore,
the juvenile court potentially adopted a case plan that virtually
guaranteed Father would fail to reunify with his children.
The law recognizes incarcerated parents face unique challenges
in obtaining reunification services, and places the burden on
DCFS to determine what services are available to an incarcerated
parent. (Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1012.) Here, there
is no evidence DCFS attempted to ascertain what services were
available to Father before recommending its case plan, which the
juvenile court wholly adopted.
       However, we are hesitant to reverse the dispositional order
and case plan on the record before us. While the record
establishes that Father was incarcerated at the time of
disposition, the parties disagree as to the start of Father’s
incarceration, and the record suggests the juvenile court adopted
the recommended case plan under the assumption Father would
be out of custody shortly after the dispositional hearing.
       Father’s appellate counsel claims Father was incarcerated
from November 2, 2022, the date LASD executed the search
warrant, through the February 8, 2023 adjudication hearing.

                                8
However, this claim is unsupported by the record. Father’s trial
counsel represented that his incarceration began on January 3,
2023. This date is consistent with other representations in the
record by Father’s trial counsel. It is also consistent with
Father’s requests for weekly in-person visits, as well as the
record of Father’s court appearances throughout the case.
Further, an early January 2023 incarceration date is also
consistent with the fact that Father’s trial counsel only began
requesting in-and-out orders after January 5, 2023. Moreover,
the record indicates social workers made numerous attempts to
contact Father while the case was pending but only attempted to
contact him at Men’s Central Jail after January 5, 2023. As such,
Father’s appellate counsel’s claim that he was continuously
incarcerated from November 2, 2023 through the February 8,
2023 adjudication and dispositional hearing is contradicted by
the record before us.
       Nevertheless, Father argues his dates of incarceration are
immaterial and it is undisputed he was incarcerated at the time
of disposition. This may be true. However, the record is unclear
as to whether Father remained incarcerated after the
dispositional hearing. At disposition, it is apparent that Father’s
counsel, DCFS, and the juvenile court presumed Father would be
out of custody in the very near future. For example, after
discussions held off the record, the juvenile court indicates that
the in-and-out order may not be necessary for the next hearing,
and Father’s counsel and the juvenile court discuss implementing
a visitation schedule upon Father’s expected release from
custody.
       As the record is ambiguous as to Father’s incarceration,
and Father’s only complaint on appeal is that the reunification

                                9
services ordered by the juvenile court may not be available due to
his incarceration, we find the better approach is to conditionally
affirm the dispositional order and case plan. Upon remand, if the
record establishes that Father has been incarcerated since
disposition, the dispositional order and case plan are reversed.
Under a reversal, the juvenile court is to enter a new
dispositional order and a case plan that is tailored to Father’s
circumstances as an incarcerated parent, and to ensure the
ordered reunification services are actually available to him.
If, however, the record shows that Father was released from
custody after the dispositional order such that the availability of
reunification services at Father’s place of incarceration is now
moot, the dispositional order and case plan shall remain in effect.
                         DISPOSITION
      The dispositional order is conditionally affirmed, and the
matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

                                          VIRAMONTES, J.

      WE CONCUR:

                  STRATTON, P. J.

                  WILEY, J.

                                10