Court Opinion

ID: 9387698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 18:02:32.873527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.997649
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/18/23 H.C. v. Superior Court CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 H.C.,
                                                                 D081593
           Petitioner,

           v.                                                    (Super. Ct. No. NJ15831)

 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
 DIEGO COUNTY,

           Respondent;

 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
 AND HUMAN SERVICES
 AGENCY,

           Real Party in Interest.

         ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate after reference to a Welfare

and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing. Michael Imhoff,

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
Commissioner. Petition granted, matter remanded with directions; request
for stay denied.
      Law Office of Lorraine Arrollado, Cameron Edwards, and Lorraine
Arrollado, for Petitioner.
      No appearance for Respondent.
      Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Kristen M. Ojeil, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
      H.C. (Mother) petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 8.452. She challenges the juvenile court’s orders issued
at a contested section 388 hearing terminating her reunification services as
to her minor child, A.C., and setting a section 366.26 hearing. She contends
the juvenile court failed to make the requisite finding regarding reasonable
services under section 388, subdivision (c)(3), before ordering the termination
of her reunification services. The San Diego County Health and Human
Services Agency (the Agency) concedes that the juvenile court failed to make
the required statutory finding and that the error is not harmless. We reverse
the juvenile court’s orders and remand the matter for further proceedings.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      Mother and A.C. both tested positive for amphetamines at the time of
A.C.’s birth. An Agency social worker attempted to speak with Mother at the
hospital, but Mother refused to respond to the social worker’s questions.
Hospital staff reported that Mother had been in and out of the behavioral
health unit and was diagnosed with depression and substance abuse. The
maternal grandmother reported that Mother had been using
methamphetamines and alcohol for approximately three years and was
currently unsheltered. Mother was discharged from the hospital on May 13,

                                       2
2022. She left an address with the hospital social worker but the Agency was
unable to contact her at that address.
        The Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of A.C. on
May 17, 2022. Mother’s whereabouts were unknown, and the Agency had not
been able to identify A.C.’s father. The juvenile court made an initial prima
facie finding on the petition, and, on June 9, 2022, the court made true
findings and took jurisdiction over A.C. pursuant to section 300, subdivision
(b).
        Mother was arrested on June 18, 2022. An Agency social worker
attempted to reach Mother in jail but did not receive any response. Mother
was released 10 days later, on June 28. At a hearing on June 30, minor’s
counsel asked the juvenile court to provide reunification services to Mother.
The court noted that Mother had not yet been located, but ordered the
Agency to continue its efforts and to provide services in the event that Mother
was located. In the associated written orders, the court ordered the Agency
to provide services to Mother consistent with her case plan. The Agency
continued to try to contact Mother over the next several months, without
success.
        On October 17, 2022, A.C. was placed in the care of the maternal
grandmother. On October 20, the maternal grandmother reported that
Mother had called her from prison. The Agency was able to locate Mother in
prison and an Agency social worker spoke with her on October 21. Mother
requested reunification services and representation, but also said she would
like A.C. to be placed with the maternal grandmother if reunification was not
possible. The Agency noted that Mother’s release date was set at July 15,
2023.

                                         3
      On November 15, 2022, the Agency filed a JV-180 request asking the
juvenile court to terminate Mother’s reunification services. The Agency noted
that Mother would be incarcerated past the 12-month court date currently set
for June 2023 and asked the court to bypass reunification services for Mother
based on the length of Mother’s incarceration and the child’s young age. The
Agency also noted that Mother had not been involved in the case up to that
point, and asserted her inaction created a substantial likelihood that
reunification would not occur. In a related addendum report, the Agency
asked the court to terminate Mother’s services and set a section 366.26
permanency hearing. Mother received appointed counsel and, on November
30, Mother requested in person visits at the prison.
      The juvenile court found the Agency had carried its prima facia burden
on the section 388 motion and set an evidentiary hearing for January 27,
2023, with the six month review hearing to trail. At the hearing on January
27, the juvenile court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
Agency had met its burden to prove there had been a change in
circumstances and that it would be in A.C.’s best interest to grant the
Agency’s request. The court then found by clear and convincing evidence that
it would be detrimental to provide reunification services for Mother, and
therefore ordered that her services be terminated. The court set a section
366.26 hearing for May 25, 2023.
      Mother timely filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Mother’s sole contention in her writ petition is that the juvenile court
failed to make a finding that she received reasonable reunification services
before terminating those services, as required by section 388, subdivision

                                        4
(c)(3). The Agency concedes the trial court erred by failing to make the
requisite finding, and that the error was not harmless. We agree.
      Typically, the law requires that the juvenile court order family
reunification services for the mother, or father, of a child that has been
removed from their custody and placed under the court’s jurisdiction. (§
361.5, subd. (a).) When reunification services are provided, they are subject
to statutory time limitations. For a child, like A.C., that is under the age of
three, the law requires that reunification services be provided for a period of
six months from the dispositional hearing but no longer than 12 months from
the date the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B), (C).)
However, there are some exceptions. As relevant here, the juvenile court is
not required to order reunification services for a parent who is incarcerated if
the court concludes that providing services would be detrimental to the child.
(§ 361.5, subd. (e).)
      Where, as here, the Agency files a section 388 motion to terminate
reunification services prior to the six-month review hearing for a child under
the age of three, section 388, subdivision (c), applies and requires that the
court first make a finding that reasonable services have been offered or
provided. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2); § 388, subd. (c)(3); In re J.P. (2014) 229
Cal.App.4th 108, 122 [“Any motion to terminate court-ordered reunification
services . . . prior to the six-month review hearing for a child who is under
three years of age or who is a member of a qualified sibling group, shall be
made pursuant to section 388, subdivision (c)”].) But, here, it appears that
the juvenile court made findings under section 388, subdivision (a), rather
than section 388, subdivision (c). As a result, the juvenile court did not make
the requisite finding regarding reasonable services. (In re J.P., supra, at p.
125 [“[T]he plain language of section 388, subdivision (c) requires the juvenile

                                         5
court to make a reasonable services finding before it may terminate
reunification services to a parent.”].)
      As the Agency concedes, this was error. The juvenile court had an
obligation to order services for Mother once located and, once ordered, the
court had an obligation to ensure those services were reasonable before
terminating them. (§361.5, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2), (d).) Notably, in its motion,
the Agency expressly asked the court to terminate Mother’s reunification
services after finding that reasonable services had been offered or provided
and that the conditions in section 388, subdivision (c)(1)(A) or (B) existed.
Further, because the juvenile court has the opportunity to address the error
prior to the section 366.26 hearing, it is reasonable and appropriate to
remand the matter to allow the court the opportunity to do so, as both Mother
and the Agency request. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(2)(A) [“The court shall not
terminate parental rights if: [¶] (A) At each hearing at which the court was
required to consider reasonable efforts or services, the court has found that
reasonable efforts were not made or that reasonable services were not offered
or provided.”]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 256 [“the
precise and demanding substantive and procedural requirements” of section
366.26 protect the due process rights of parents]). If, after making the
requisite statutory findings, the juvenile court proceeds to terminate
Mother’s reunification services, it may set a new section 366.26 hearing
forthwith.
                                 DISPOSITION
      Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the juvenile court to
vacate its January 27, 2023, orders and conduct further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. The request for a stay is denied. This opinion

                                          6
shall become final immediately upon filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.490(b)(2)(A).)

                                                     HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

                    DATO, J.

              BUCHANAN, J.

                                      7