Skip to content
Name: In re Katelynn Y.
Case #: D061670
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/28/2012

Termination of mother’s reunification services was proper despite continuation of services for father and not setting a 366.26 hearing. Prior to a six-month review hearing, minor’s counsel filed a 388 petition asking for termination of reunification services to the parents and the setting of a 366.26 hearing. The court terminated mother’s services, but continued father’s services. On appeal, mother contended that the court erred by terminating her services when father was still receiving services with the goal of reunification, and since the court did not set a 366.26 hearing. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Because mother’s failure to participate in the services created a substantial likelihood that she would not reunify with the minor, the court properly terminated her services. Interpreting the statute to require the continuation of services for mother, who has no interest in reunifying, simply because father has made some efforts would defeat the purpose of the dependency proceedings by ignoring the minor’s best interests. Further, given the circumstances, the court properly found that mother would not utilize additional services, nor would they ultimately be in the minor’s best interest.