Evidence Code section 730 provides for the appointment of an expert by the juvenile court to perform a bonding study on behalf of a parent. Minors were removed and reunification services were ordered. During the reunification period, Mother requested that the juvenile court appoint an expert to conduct a bonding study to assist her defense against the termination of her parental rights. The juvenile court denied the motion, stating that it was improper for the court to appoint an expert to aid Mother in her own defense. Mother appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Evidence Code section 730 allows for the appointment of an expert when the expert evidence is requested by the court or by any party to the action. Thus, the plain language of the statute provides for the appointment of an expert to perform a bonding study on behalf of Mother at the court’s expense. This construction is supported by the language of In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, which strongly encourages the court’s use of bonding studies. Thus, the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s request.

Mother’s request for a bonding study during the reunification phase was not categorically premature. In its denial of Mother’s request for a bonding study, the juvenile court additionally concluded that Mother’s request was not yet ripe. The plain language of Evidence Code section 730 authorizes the appointment of an expert “at any time before or during the trial of an action.” There is no bright-line rule to determine whether a request for a bonding study is too early, but rather, the timing of the request is one factor, among many, that the court may consider when deciding whether to grant the request. To the extent that the denial of Mother’s request was based on the erroneous legal assumption that Mother’s request was categorially too early, it was error and must be remanded for reconsideration.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A169561.PDF