Skip to content
Name: In re Jayden M.
Case #: B321967
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/27/2023

When considering a parent’s reasonable effort to address a problem from a previous dependency case, the juvenile court should look at the entire time period between when the earliest sibling was removed from the parent’s custody and the current dispositional hearing. The minor was removed from Mother in 2021 due to her drug use during pregnancy. The juvenile court had previously found jurisdiction over five of Minor’s six siblings. Minor’s oldest sibling was removed from Mother in 2001, when he was born testing positive for drugs. Two additional siblings were born positive for drugs in 2003 and in 2020. Mother…

View Full Summary
Name: In re T.R.
Case #: E079291
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/18/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 1/27/2023

Bypass of reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) was improper where severe physical abuse occurred in a prior dependency case and Father had promptly engaged in predisposition services. The minors were removed from the parents due to domestic violence, excessive corporal punishment, and Mother’s sexual abuse of one of the minors. The minors had previously been removed five years earlier due in part to physical abuse by Father, who was then subsequently bypassed pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) [infliction of severe physical harm]. In the months leading up to the jurisdiction/disposition hearing in the present case, Father…

View Full Summary
Name: In re B.E. et al.
Case #: G058062
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/23/2020

Passive resistance to treatment such as a relapse does not satisfy subdivision (b)(13). Parents had an extensive history of drug abuse, treatments, and relapses. The current dependency proceeding was not their first dependency proceeding. They reunified with the minors in January of 2018, but later relapsed. Both parents voluntarily enrolled in residential treatment, completed the program, and relapsed again. Throughout the ensuing dependency proceedings, parents had positive tests and relapses. However, parents participated in all services recommended by the social worker, including therapy, drug treatment, NA meetings, parenting classes, and meeting with a sponsor.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.S.
Case #: D075278
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/30/2019

Termination of parental rights was reversed where the Department did not establish that mother's whereabouts were unknown when it bypassed services and set a 366.26 hearing. The infant minor was detained at birth in an El Centro hospital when she was born testing positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. Mother did not appear at a subsequent disposition hearing, and she was denied reunification services based on the juvenile court's finding that her whereabouts were unknown. On appeal, mother contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that her whereabouts were unknown at the time of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Cody R.
Case #: D073527
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/17/2018

Parent had no standing to challenge the social worker's actions under the relative placement statutes where there was no showing that she could have reunified. The child was removed from parental custody after he was found severely malnourished to the point of starvation. The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition and bypassed reunification services based on a finding of severe physical abuse. It set a hearing under section 366.26. The court did not advise the parents that they could challenge this order only by way of a writ petition, but mother filed a notice of intent to file such a…

View Full Summary
Name: Jennifer S. et al v. Superior Court (S.F. County)
Case #: A151627
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/02/2017

Juvenile court properly denied reunification services to parents who made partial late efforts to treat substance abuse problems. The infant minor was detained shortly after her birth due to the parents' substance abuse and history of domestic violence. At the dispositional hearing, each parent was bypassed for reunification services under section 361.5 subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11). In a writ petition, parents argued that the juvenile court erred in finding they had not made reasonable efforts to treat their substance abuse issues. The appellate court disagreed and denied writ relief. Although mother had made laudable recent efforts…

View Full Summary
Name: D.F. v. Superior Court
Case #: A146191
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/24/2015

Prior termination of parental rights need not have occurred in California in order to bypass reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). The juvenile court denied reunification services to mother under 361.5 (b)(10), as her parental rights to a sibling had been previously severed. Mother petitioned for relief, challenging the bypass because her parental rights to the sibling had been terminated in Texas. Mother relied on Melissa R. v. Superior Court (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 816, which held that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), authorizing bypass of services where services have been terminated due to a prior failure to reunify, applies by…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.S.
Case #: C075626
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/24/2014

The juvenile court abused its discretion by applying clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in order to modify prior order bypassing services. Following removal of the minors, the juvenile court bypassed services to the parents based on their prior resistance to drug treatment. The parents subsequently filed 388 petitions to modify the bypass order. The juvenile court denied the petitions, finding that the proper burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence that services were in the minors' best interest. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new hearing. In dependency cases, except as otherwise provided, the burden…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.B.
Case #: E058328
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/20/2013

Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16) authorizes the court to bypass services where parents are required to register as sex offenders in any jurisdiction. In 2010, S.B.'s father was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1), and was required to register as a sex offender. In 2012, S.B. was removed from her mother's care. Father hoped to regain custody but was instead denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16). On appeal, he argued subdivision (b)(16) did not apply because he was not required to register as a sex offender under federal law and insufficient evidence established offering him…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.M.
Case #: A136436
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/10/2013

Order granting reunification services is reversed where juvenile court did not make requisite findings under section 361.5, subdivision (c) after infant minor suffered serious injuries inflicted by Mother's boyfriend. The infant minor and his sibling were removed after doctors found the infant had several bone fractures which doctors believed were non-accidentally inflicted by a series of violent acts. The parents were the only caretakers of the baby but both professed ignorance as to the cause of the injuries. A petition was sustained, and parents were denied services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b). A…

View Full Summary