Father’s removal from family home and order of supervised visitation falls under section 361, subdivision (c) rather than section 362, subdivision (c). The juvenile court found jurisdiction over the minors based mainly on Father’s substance abuse issues. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court found section 362, subdivision (c) was applicable because the minors remained in the home with a custodial parent. It ordered placement with Mother and supportive services to Father, who had moved out of the home. Father appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Section 361, subdivision (c) applies when the juvenile court is considering removing a dependent child from the physical custody of their parent. Section 362, subdivision (c) applies when a child is declared a dependent but is retained in parental custody. Here, Father’s restrictions from the family residence amounted to a removal of physical custody and thus, section 361, subdivision (c) was the applicable code section.

Disposition findings must be reversed where there was insufficient evidence that the Agency made reasonable efforts to avoid removal. While substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that there was a substantial danger to the minors if returned to Father, there was not substantial evidence that the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removal. The Agency neglected to refer Father to parenting classes, ask Father about his plan to maintain sobriety, or endeavor to understand his drug testing results. The record did not reflect that the Agency assisted Father in any meaningful way to avoid the minors’ removal from his custody. The juvenile court may not order a child removed from parental custody without a finding that reasonable efforts were made, and thus the disposition orders must be reversed.

Read the full opinion: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A169493.PDF