Skip to content
Name: In re D.H.
Case #: C075278
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/16/2014

The juvenile court erred when it bypassed services where prior removal of minor’s half-siblings did not involve the same problems as the current case. Father contended that the juvenile court erred when it denied him reunification services under section 361.5(b)(10) and (11) on the basis that he had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problem which led to the removal of the minors’ half-siblings. Father contended that there was no evidence that alcohol or domestic violence led to the removal of the half-siblings, but that he had in fact participated in services designed to address substance abuse issues. The appellate court found that father had not made reasonable efforts to address alcohol abuse or domestic violence problems. However, there was insufficient evidence that the problems leading to the removal of the half-siblings was caused by alcohol abuse or domestic violence. The record reflected only that the half-siblings were removed because they were living in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, with no evidence that the conditions were caused by father’s alcohol use or domestic violence. Therefore, the bypass provisions of section 361.5(b)(10) and (11) did not apply.