Court Opinion

ID: 9353812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 20:02:10.535916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:57.148389
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/11/23 In re Sophie K. CA2/4
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

 In re Sophie K. et al., Persons                                                    B315277
 Coming Under Juvenile Court Law.
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                                 (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                                             Super. Ct. No.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                                               19CCJP04498A-B)

             Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

 SARAH W.,

             Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed in part,
vacated in part, and remanded with directions.
    David M. Yorton, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim
Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant
       __________________________________________

                      INTRODUCTION
      Appellant Sarah W. (Mother) appeals from a
September 20, 2021, juvenile court order sustaining a
petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871
and removing her daughters, Sophie, then age three, and
Riley, then age one, from her custody for the second time.
The juvenile court case had begun more than two years
before, after Mother had multiple psychiatric
hospitalizations in less than a month. The court had ordered
Sophie and Riley detained after a hearing on July 17, 2019,
and then removed from their parents’ care after an August
22, 2019, hearing.
      About a year later, on September 17, 2020, the juvenile
court ordered the children returned to Mother’s care after
receiving evidence of her compliance with her court-ordered
mental health treatment plan.
      About a year after that, on September 20, 2021, the
court held a hearing on the section 387 petition underlying

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

                               2
this appeal. The court received evidence that Mother
continued to experience psychiatric symptoms and
hospitalizations after the court returned the children to her
care. The court concluded that its prior order had proven
ineffective to ensure the children’s safety and ordered them
removed once more from Mother’s care. The court extended
reunification services, which action the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) now
challenges in its cross-appeal.
      We affirm the order of the juvenile court sustaining the
section 387 petition and removing the children from
Mother’s care. We vacate the court’s order extending
reunification services and remand with instructions to
conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      Mother and Donald K. (Father) are the parents of
Sophie, born October 2016, and Riley, born October 2018.
Because Father is not a party to this appeal, we omit
discussion of the facts and procedural history pertaining
solely to him.

      A.   DCFS Investigates a Referral
      On June 19, 2019, DCFS received a referral alleging
Mother was neglecting the children, then two years old and
eight months old, due to mental illness resulting in
symptoms such as suicidal ideation and acts of self-harm. At

                              3
the time of the referral, Mother had recently been
discharged from a one-week psychiatric hospitalization.
      A children’s social worker (CSW) spoke with Mother at
the shelter where she and the children had been staying
since her release nine days before. Mother told the CSW
that the children’s maternal grandmother (MGM) would be
able to care for them if Mother were to again require
hospitalization, and that MGM had done so during Mother’s
recent week-long hospitalization.
      The CSW also spoke with Mother’s case manager at
the shelter, who voiced suspicion that Mother was not taking
her prescribed psychiatric medication.
      The CSW spoke with MGM on June 27, 2019. MGM
stated her view that Mother needed more consistent and
comprehensive mental health treatment due to her
continuing thoughts of suicide. MGM stated she was willing
to care for the children when needed but believed it was
detrimental to them to keep going “back and forth” between
Mother’s care and hers.
      The next day, the CSW learned that Mother had again
been hospitalized after reporting that she was “‘blacking
out’” and having an “‘out of body experience.’” Mother was
diagnosed at that time with stress-induced seizures. MGM
cared for the children until Mother was discharged a few
days later.

                             4
     B.     DCFS Investigates Another Referral and
            Files a Petition
      On July 1, 2019, DCFS received another referral, this
one reporting Mother had just been hospitalized on a
psychiatric hold and continued to confess thoughts of suicide
and self-harm. Mother told the CSW she had no specific
plans to act on her suicidal thoughts but stated that she felt
she was “‘going downhill.’” The CSW again spoke with
Mother’s case manager, who said that Mother had asked
MGM to pick the children up from the shelter but MGM was
unable to do so immediately because she was at work. The
CSW transported the children to a DCFS office, where a
family member subsequently came to retrieve the children.
      That night, the CSW learned that Mother had been
discharged after denying being suicidal. The CSW received
a text message from Mother stating that she was “‘really sad
and depressed,’” expressing remorse for not being honest
with the hospital staff, and stating she did not know “‘why I
can’t just die and never come back.’”
      The next day, the shelter asked Mother to leave due to
her refusal to receive recommended psychiatric services.
After a conversation with the CSW, Mother agreed to accept
help and asked that the children be left with MGM while she
did that. Mother subsequently informed the CSW she had
checked herself into a residential treatment program and
again asked that the children be left with MGM.

                              5
      On July 10, 2019, DCFS obtained a removal order from
the juvenile court. The children were already in MGM’s care
at the time of the order and remained there.
      A few days later, DCFS filed a petition under section
300, subdivision (b), alleging that Mother’s psychiatric
problems, along with her failure to accept treatment or take
prescribed psychiatric medication, rendered her unable to
provide regular care and supervision for the children and
placed them at risk of serious physical harm.2

      C.    The Court Detains the Children
      At a July 17, 2019, hearing, the court ordered the
children detained and granted Mother monitored visits. The
children remained in MGM’s care. A dependency
investigator (DI) spoke with Mother, who confirmed her
psychiatric diagnoses and hospitalization history.
      Mother reportedly had been diagnosed with “Major
Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe with Psychotic
Symptoms,” “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic,” and
“Borderline Personality Disorder” as well as, according to
her, Anxiety Disorder and Bipolar Disorder. She reported
twice experiencing post-partum depression and admitted

2      On August 14, 2019, DCFS filed an amended petition,
adding a second count alleging Mother and Father endangered
the children by permitting the maternal grandfather, a known
sex offender, to have unsupervised access to the children. Both
parents denied the allegations. Because Father is not a party to
this appeal, and the court did not sustain this count as to Mother,
we need not address it here.

                                6
cutting herself, at times. She described her symptoms as
worsening and exacerbated by caring for the children and a
lack of stable housing. She admitted that she did not
regularly attend therapy or take her medication but stated
that she had previously experienced some stabilization when
she took medication while hospitalized. Mother said she did
not have a good relationship with MGM but believed that
MGM would care for the children when necessary.
      The DI visited MGM’s home and found it to be safe and
appropriate for the children. MGM worked full time and
lived with the children’s maternal aunt (MA), who stayed
home to care for her three children, ages 16, 13, and 10,
along with Sophie and Riley. MGM and MA corroborated
Mother’s psychiatric history. MA opined that Mother lacked
the maturity to care for Sophie and Riley and that she would
often “abandon” them in her relatives’ care, using her mental
health as an excuse to let someone else “‘take care of her
mess.’”

      D. Adjudication and Disposition
      At an August 22, 2019, adjudication hearing, neither
Mother nor the children presented any evidence. Mother’s
counsel stated that Mother took “full responsibility for any
mental or emotional issues that she’[d] been having” and
was “committed to making sure that they’re not a problem.”
The children’s counsel and DCFS’s counsel asked the court
to sustain the allegations of the petition that Mother’s

                              7
psychiatric problems impaired her ability to care for the
children and put their safety and well-being at risk.
      The court sustained the petition on that count. The
court ordered the children removed from Mother’s care and
ordered her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and
participate in mental health treatment including individual
counseling, joint counseling with the children, and
compliance with prescribed psychiatric medication. The
court also ordered family reunification services.

     E.    The Court Holds Multiple Review Hearings

            1.   Interim Review Hearing
      Following the children’s removal, Mother visited with
them regularly but patterns of instability in her housing and
debilitating psychiatric symptoms persisted. At a November
2019 interim review hearing, the court ordered the children
to remain dependents of the court.

            2.   Six-Month Review Hearing
      At a February 20, 2020, review hearing, the juvenile
court found Mother’s progress in her case plan was not
substantial and ordered the children to remain in MGM’s
care and family reunification services to continue. In its
status report, DCFS had informed the court that Mother was
attending weekly therapy sessions but that she had changed
her medication several times because it was “not working.”
DCFS noted that Mother was complying with her case plan
but expressed concern that she had “not changed her

                              8
behaviors such as not being focused, not taking
responsibility for her actions or inactions, [and] not
controlling her impulsivity and anger outbursts.” DCFS also
reported that Mother continued to seek and undergo
hospitalization for her psychiatric symptoms.

            3.    Twelve-Month Review Hearing
      At a September 17, 2020, review hearing, the children
were reported to be doing well in MGM’s care. It was also
reported that Mother had been able to secure stable housing
for herself and the children and continued to participate in
mental health treatment. DCFS’s counsel nevertheless
asked the court to leave the children in MGM’s care and
continue reunification services for both parents, expressing
concern about statements Mother had made to the CSW that
she would kill herself if the court did not return the children
to her care.
      Mother testified that the statements the CSW
attributed to her were just her explaining what her “head
space” was the previous year, and that she had grown a lot
since then. Mother’s counsel asked the court to return the
children to her care, arguing the evidence showed Mother
was no longer suicidal, that she had arranged suitable
housing for her and the children, and that there was no risk
of harm to the children if they were returned to Mother. The
children’s counsel agreed the court should return the
children to Mother’s care as long as Mother continued to
comply with her mental health treatment plan.

                              9
      The court stated that it could not find by a
preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial
risk to the children in Mother’s care. The court ordered
custody returned to Mother, with the transition to occur
gradually over four weeks and be completed by October 13.
The court ordered Mother to continue participating in her
mental health treatment programs and taking her
prescribed medication. The court set a hearing under
section 364 where the court would consider closing the case.

      F.    Section 364 Hearing
      Following the children’s transition back to Mother’s
care in October 2020, DCFS initially observed that they were
doing well and that Mother continued to comply with her
mental health treatment plan. By February 2021, however,
Mother was expressing that she was feeling overwhelmed by
the children’s needs and was contemplating going to a
hospital for a “voluntary hold.” She stated she had no
thoughts of self-harm “‘right now,’” but added that she
“‘could go about another week or so before I hit that point
where I know I need to get myself into the hospital.’” DCFS
offered to speak with MGM to see if the children could stay
with her while Mother was hospitalized. MGM picked up
the children on February 18, 2021.
      One day later, on February 19, 2021, Mother called a
crisis hotline and was hospitalized early the next morning.
She was discharged the next day, after informing her
treating doctor that her thoughts of self-harm would “come

                             10
and go.” Four days later, Mother informed the CSW that she
was going to another hospital. She was placed on a
psychiatric hold for two weeks and discharged on March 10,
2021. At that time, Mother told the CSW that she was “‘like
a maniac right now’” and was “‘trying to go back to the
hospital today.’” She reported recently experiencing
auditory and visual hallucinations.
       Mother was on an inpatient psychiatric hold again
from March 24 through March 29, 2021. On April 7, 2021,
Mother told DCFS that she had been “‘in and out of the
hospital’” and was “‘still not good’” but was not going to hurt
herself. At an April 13, 2021, section 364 hearing, the court
found Mother was complying with her treatment plan but
concluded that continued jurisdiction was necessary. The
court set a further section 364 hearing for September 2021.
       On May 6, 2021, Mother reported she was doing better
but was not yet ready to have the children return to her care
full time. It was agreed at that time that Mother would have
up to three hours of unmonitored contact with the children
twice a week. On May 29, 2021, while the children were
visiting with Mother, she reported feeling anxious and
depressed but denied any suicidal ideation.
       On June 25, 2021, MGM and MA reported to the CSW
that Mother was often cutting her three-hour visits short,
calling to say she was feeling unwell and asking that the
children be picked up early. On July 23, 2021, MA informed
the CSW that Mother had been placed on another
psychiatric hold on July 16th. MGM informed the CSW that

                              11
Mother had continued cutting visits short and was
inattentive to the children during the limited time she spent
with them at MGM’s home. MGM and MA expressed the
view that Mother would be unable to care for the children if
they were returned to her full time. Both also expressed
concern that Mother’s recurrent mental health crises were
depriving the children of much-needed stability and
observed that the children showed signs of distress.
        On August 3, 2021, Mother informed the CSW she had
been “in and out of the hospital” even before her July 16th
psychiatric hold. Mother stated she had been placed in a 28-
day inpatient program, and that she might need to go to
another program afterwards. Mother described herself as
“‘still not right right now,’” and also said that “if it wasn’t for
her girls[,] she wouldn’t be here anymore.”

      G.    DCFS Files a Supplemental Petition Seeking
            Removal
      On August 5, 2021, DCFS filed a petition under section
387 alleging that the court’s prior order returning the
children to Mother’s care had been ineffective in protecting
the children because Mother had been “in and out of
psychiatric hospitals” since then. As with the original
petition, the section 387 petition alleged Mother’s psychiatric
symptoms rendered her unable to care for the children and
endangered their physical safety.
      At the initial hearing on the supplemental petition,
DCFS’s counsel noted that, notwithstanding the court’s

                                12
September 17, 2020, order returning the children to Mother’s
care, they had been residing with MGM for several months.
DCFS characterized the section 387 petition as just a “legal
procedure” to catch the court orders up with the reality that
Mother was unable to supervise and care for them. The
children’s counsel asked the court to detain them, arguing
that such young children would be at substantial risk of
harm if Mother continued to experience acute psychiatric
symptoms and MGM was not immediately aware and
available to step in.
      Mother’s counsel opposed detention, arguing that the
children were not at risk of harm from her persistent
psychiatric problems because Mother had made an
appropriate plan for their care that could be deployed
whenever Mother was incapacitated by her symptoms. The
juvenile court concluded that, on the record before it, there
was “a safety issue,” and that “if Mother were to go and get
the children now, there would be a problem.” The court
ordered the children detained and set a September 20, 2021,
hearing on the section 387 petition.
      The report DCFS filed prior to the hearing on the
petition contained a July 25, 2021, report from Mother’s
mental health services provider. The report noted that
Mother disclosed hearing voices continuously since her mid-
teens and had confirmed experiencing depression, suicidal
ideation, recurring thoughts of self-harm, and
hallucinations, as well as undergoing “worsening symptoms
and multiple psychiatric hospitalizations” starting in

                             13
February 2021, four months after the court had returned
custody to her. Mother admitted she had stopped cooking
and showering, and, at times, coped by cutting and burning
herself.
      At the September 20, 2021, hearing, counsel for DCFS
acknowledged Mother’s efforts but noted that, despite them,
her treatment had not been successful, leaving the children
at risk in her care.
      The children’s counsel asked the court to sustain the
petition, highlighting concerns about Mother’s persistent
thoughts of suicide and self-harm, her hallucinations, and
her demonstrated inability to care for the children without
becoming overwhelmed and anxious. Mother’s counsel asked
the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that DCFS had
failed to show a connection between Mother’s psychiatric
problems and a substantial risk of physical harm to the
children.
      The court sustained the petition, finding that the facts
alleged in the petition were true and that the services
provided to Mother had been reasonable but ineffective. The
court concluded that there was “clear and convincing
evidence that there would be a substantial danger [to]
physical health, safety, protection and physical well-being if
the children were returned to Mother today.” The court also
concluded that Mother was “on the right track now,” and
ordered continuing family reunification services, over
DCFS’s objection. The court also appointed an expert to

                             14
perform psychological testing of Mother. The court then set
a March 21, 2022, hearing under section 366.25.
      Mother timely appealed the order sustaining the
section 387 petition and removing the children from her
care. DCFS timely appealed the court’s order extending
reunification services and setting a hearing under section
366.25 rather than section 366.26.
      DCFS subsequently asked this court to take judicial
notice of the juvenile court’s September 13, 2022, minute
orders continuing the section 366.25 hearing to December
13, 2022. We grant the request.

                       DISCUSSION

     A.    The Court Did Not Err in Sustaining the
           Section 387 Petition or in Removing the
           Children from Mother’s Custody

            1.    Governing Law
      A section 387 supplemental petition is used to change
the placement of a dependent child from the physical custody
of a parent to a more restrictive level of court-ordered care.
(§ 387; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560(c).) In the
jurisdictional phase of a section 387 proceeding, the court
determines whether the factual allegations of the
supplemental petition are true and whether the previous
disposition has been ineffective in protecting the child.
(§ 387, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(e)(1).) A
section 387 petition need not allege any new jurisdictional

                             15
facts or urge different or additional grounds for dependency
because a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction already exists.
(In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211; In re Joel H.
(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1200.) The only fact necessary
to modify the prior placement is that “the previous
disposition has not been effective in protecting the child.”
(In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161 (citing § 387,
subd. (b)).)
      If the court finds the factual allegations of the petition
are true, it then proceeds to conduct a disposition hearing to
determine whether removing custody is appropriate,
applying the procedures and protections of section 361. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 5.565(e)(2); In re T.W., supra, 214
Cal.App.4th at 1161.) Before ordering removal, the court
must find by clear and convincing evidence that “‘[t]here is
or would be a substantial danger to the physical health,
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the
minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no
reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can
be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s
parent’s . . . physical custody.’” (Id. at 1163.) A removal
order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to
provide proper care and potential detriment to the child if
she remains with the parent. (Ibid.) “The parent need not
be dangerous and the [child] need not have been harmed
before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on
averting harm to the child.” (Ibid.)

                              16
      We review the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional
findings for substantial evidence. (In re T.W., supra, 214
Cal.App.4th at 1161-1162.)

            2.     Analysis
      Here, the August 5, 2021, supplemental petition
alleged that the court-ordered mental health treatment
“ha[s] failed to rehabilitate [Mother, who] continues to
experience mental and emotional problems to such a degree
that [she] is unable to care for the children. . . endanger[ing]
the children’s physical health and safety and plac[ing] the
children at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and
danger.” Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in
sustaining the petition because the evidence demonstrated
that her coverage arrangements with MGM mitigated the
risk to the children. She similarly argues that insufficient
evidence supports the court’s decision to remove the children
from her custody, and that there were reasonable
alternatives to doing so. We disagree.
      By her own account, and despite participating in court-
ordered mental health treatment, Mother’s psychiatric
symptoms had worsened starting in February 2021, four
months after the court returned the children to her care.
Mother, MGM, and MA all recognized that caring for the
children exacerbated Mother’s symptoms and that even
short periods of caregiving overwhelmed her. Mother
revealed that she experienced auditory and visual
hallucinations as well as persistent thoughts of suicide and

                              17
self-harm following the return of the children to her care.
She admitted being hospitalized repeatedly during that
same time period.
       Mother’s persistent, severe psychiatric symptoms
meant that she may have found herself, at any moment, in
the desperate position of caring by herself for two very young
children while hallucinating, suffering from seizures or
paralyzing anxiety and depression, or giving in to thoughts
of self-harm or even suicide with the children looking on.
The evidence of her precarious circumstances amply
supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that the order
returning the children to Mother’s care had proven to be
ineffective in protecting them. With regard to the order for
removal, it is well-settled that a juvenile court “‘need not
wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to . . . take
the steps necessary to protect the child.’” (In re I.J. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) The same substantial evidence also
supported the juvenile court’s conclusion that removal was
warranted because Mother had shown herself to be unable to
care for the children and remaining in her care could be
detrimental to them.
       Mother complains the court failed to consider
“reasonable alternatives short of the drastic removal of her
children from her care,” but fails to identify what those
alternatives were. She repeats only that she could rely on
MGM or MA to care for the children when she was unable to.
But Mother’s backup plan hinged on others being aware of
the need to relieve her and available to do so. In Mother’s

                              18
precarious circumstances, a life-threatening catastrophe
could occur in an instant, making the plan insufficiently
protective. And, given how often Mother had already
resorted to the backup plan, those close to the children were
able to bear witness that it had created instability,
uncertainty, and distress for them.

     B.     The Court Erred in Ordering Continued
            Reunification Services
      DCFS challenges the juvenile court’s order extending
family reunification services for six months after removing
the children from Mother’s care for the second time.
Because it appears the court lacked discretion to extend
reunification services by that stage of the proceedings, we
vacate the order.

            1.    Governing Law
       When a minor is removed from a parent’s custody on
an original petition, the court must order reunification
services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) But when a juvenile court
sustains a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387,
the clock does not start over with regard to reunification
efforts. The question for the court is instead whether
reunification efforts should resume. Efforts should resume if
the parent: (1) received less than 12 months of child welfare
services (§§ 361.5, subd. (a), 366.21, subd. (e)); or (2) did not
receive reasonable child welfare services (§§ 366.21, subd.
(g)(1), 366.22, subd. (a)); or (3) the case has passed the 12-
month mark but there is a substantial probability the child

                               19
will be returned within 18 months of the date the child was
originally removed from the parent’s physical custody.
(§ 366.21, subd. (g); In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845,
853.)
      The 12-month limitation on services begins to run
either on the date of the jurisdictional hearing or 60 days
after the child was initially removed from parental custody,
whichever is earlier. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).) Time limits on
reunification services arise out of concern for a child’s need
for prompt resolution of his or her custody status to provide
stability and avoid the damage that can result from
prolonged temporary placements. (§ 352, subd. (a); In re
N.M., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at 852.) A juvenile court’s
orders respecting reunification services are subject to that
court’s broad discretion. To reverse such an order, a
reviewing court must find an abuse of discretion. (In re
N.M., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at 852.)

            2.   Analysis
      Here, the court issued a detention order on or about
July 10, 2019, and held a jurisdictional hearing on August
22, 2019. At that time, the court ordered removal of the
children from their parents’ care along with the
commencement of family reunification services. By August
22, 2020, the family had been receiving reunification services
for 12 months.
      The children were not returned to Mother’s care until
the September 17, 2020, review hearing. By the time the

                              20
court ordered their removal for the second time on
September 20, 2021, more than two years had passed.
Neither the juvenile court at the time of the hearing nor the
parties in this appeal have identified any legal authority
supporting the order extending family reunification services.
We are aware of none.
      Both parties discuss in their briefs section 366.22,
subdivision (b) (section 366.22(b)), which provides that if a
“child is not returned to a parent . . . at the permanency
review hearing,” a court may order additional reunification
services if it determines that such services would be in the
best interests of the child, and (1) the parent “is making
significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered
residential substance abuse treatment program”; (2) the
parent “was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent
parent at the time of the initial hearing [and is] making
significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe
home for the child’s return”; or (3) the parent was “recently
discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the
custody of the United States Department of Homeland
Security and [is] making significant and consistent progress
in establishing a safe home for the child’s return.” (§ 366.22,
subd. (b).) Upon making such determinations, “the court
may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent
permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall
occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally
taken from the physical custody of [his or her] parent.”
(Ibid.)

                              21
      Here, at the time the court extended services, more
than 24 months had already passed since the children were
taken from the custody of their parents. Moreover, the
juvenile court made no finding of any of the three section
366.2(b) scenarios, none of which seem compatible with the
evidence before the court. And the statute appears, on its
face, to apply to actions at a “permanency hearing,” which
the hearing on the section 387 petition was not.
      Mother contends that the court could have ordered
continued reunification services under section 352. Courts
have held that, notwithstanding the statutory time limits on
reunification services, “a juvenile court may invoke section
352 to extend family reunification services beyond these
limits if there are ‘extraordinary circumstances which
militate[] in favor of’ such an extension.” (In re D.N. (2020)
56 Cal.App.5th 741, 762.) But the juvenile court here made
no findings regarding the extraordinary circumstances
warranting such an extension. Moreover, after ordering the
extension of reunification services, the court explicitly set a
hearing under 366.25. Such a hearing is set when the court
extends services under section 366.22(b), not section 352.
(§ 366.25, subd. (a)(1).) Even if the court could have
appropriately extended reunification services under section
352, it did not.
      Because we are aware of no legal authority authorizing
the juvenile court’s order extending reunification services
beyond the statutory time limits, we vacate that order.

                              22
                        DISPOSITION
      The order sustaining the section 387 petition and
removing the children is affirmed. The juvenile court’s order
extending reunification services is vacated. On remand, the
juvenile court is to conduct further proceedings in a manner
consistent with this opinion.3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                   SCADUTO, J. *

We concur:

COLLINS, Acting P.J.                                CURREY, J.

3     DCFS asked this court to direct the juvenile court to set a
hearing under section 366.26. On the record before this court,
such a hearing appears warranted. But without knowing the
factual developments and legal proceedings that have occurred
and will occur between the time of the appealed order and the
remittitur of this appeal, we decline to prescribe what the
juvenile court must do next.
*     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to Article VI, section 6, of the California
Constitution.

                                 23