Court Opinion

ID: 9747940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:44:23.817352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:29.171358
License: Public Domain

*475SIMS, Acting P. J.
I respectfully dissent. I would issue a writ.
This case concerns “the profound importance of a denial of reunification services based on mental disability.” (In re Catherine S. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1253, 1257 [281 Cal.Rptr. 746].)
My disagreement with the majority lies in our different interpretations of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (c) which provides in pertinent part that “. . . the court shall order reunification services unless competent evidence from mental health professionals establishes that, even with the provision of services, the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the time limits specified in subdivision (a)”1
“[C]ompetent evidence from mental health professionals” means evidence from at least two professionals. (In re Rebecca H. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 825, 844 [278 Cal.Rptr. 185]; see Seiser & Kumli, Cal. Juvenile Courts, Practice and Procedure (2000) § 2.129[2][a], p. 2-189.)
The majority and I disagree as to what constitutes “competent evidence” under section 361.5, subdivision (c). In the majority’s view, evidence may be “competent” if it consists of facts in the expert’s reports from which the trial court may draw an inference that the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the specified time limits. In my view, the statute envisions that the experts must render professional opinions that the parent is Unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the specified time limits. I think this is so because the question of likelihood of reunification (given the provision of services) seems to me to be peculiarly one that lends itself to resolution of mental health professionals, not judges.
On this record, there was only one mental health professional, Paul Wuehler, Ph.D., who opined that reunification was unlikely. James Voss, Ph.D., opined that reunification was “guarded to fair.” This is not an opinion that reunification was unlikely. Consequently, in my view, the record does not reflect competent evidence from two mental health professionals that, even with the provision of services, reunification was unlikely. Petitioner was wrongfully denied reunification services, and a writ should issue.
Petitioner’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 21, 2000.

Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.