Skip to content
Name: In re Kyle E.
Case #: C061669
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/22/2010

The juvenile court may not delegate all conditions of visitation to the department, and must provide either a minimum number of visits or provide that visitation occur regularly. The presumed father of the minor appealed from an order terminating services, arguing that the juvenile court's visitation order unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not visitation would occur at all to the department. The appellate court agreed and reversed the visitation order. The oral visitation order was problematic because it provided appellant with supervised visitation and nothing more. The written order provided for visitation "as frequent…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jennifer O.
Case #: B216672
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 05/06/2010

Service of notice of six-month review hearing to a Mexican resident by first class mail is sufficient. Appellant father, a resident of Mexico, appealed the order terminating his reunification services at the six month review hearing. He contended that service of notice of the hearing was governed by the Hague Convention, which required service by registered mail. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that the Hague Convention requirements do not apply to service of notice of review hearings. The Legislature has determined that notice by first class mail is sufficient, and here the notice complied with California…

View Full Summary
Name: A.H. v. Superior Court
Case #: G043003
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/11/2010

Juvenile court properly considered father's incarceration before terminating services and setting 366.26 hearing. Father was incarcerated during much of the dependency period and was unable to participate in his case plan. He sought writ relief following the termination of his reunification services and the setting of a 366.26 hearing. He contended that the juvenile court should have applied section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2) which takes into account the parent's incarceration, rather than section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1), which does not. The appellate court denied the petition. There is no reason to infer from the statutory scheme that the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Calvin P.
Case #: D054830
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/27/2009

Reunification services to the previously-custodial parent were not made moot by reunification with the previously-noncustodial parent. The mother and the minors appealed an order requiring the department to provide family maintenance services, contending that the court erred in ordering family maintenance instead of reunification services to the mother because the children were placed in the father's custody. The mother also contended that the department had not provided reasonable reunification services for her even though the services were court ordered and in the children's best interests. The department contended that services to the nonreunifying parent are discretionary. The appellate court found…

View Full Summary
Name: S.T. v. Superior Court
Case #: B216686
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/18/2009

The juvenile court had discretion to extend services beyond six months where the parent was about to be released from prison. The incarcerated father sought writ relief from an order terminating his services after six months and setting a 366.26 hearing as to his daughter. He contended that the juvenile court erred in believing it had no discretion to continue services and in finding that reasonable services had been provided. The department and minor's counsel agreed that there would be no detriment to the minor from continuation of services and did not oppose the requested relief, but argued that reasonable…

View Full Summary
Name: S.W. v. Superior Court
Case #: G041674
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/26/2009

Father's one telephone contact was insufficient to support a continuation of reunification services at the six-month review hearing. At a six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated father's reunification services and set a 366.26 hearing, finding that he had not visited the minor in the previous six months. Father did speak once to the minor on the phone, and once left a message for her. The minor called the father repeatedly, but he did not return her calls. In a writ petition, father contended that although he did not visit, his telephone contact with the minor warranted additional services. The…

View Full Summary
Name: In re G.W.
Case #: F056246
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/19/2009

The juvenile court erred by placing minors in a guardianship with the stepgrandmother with criminal conviction instead of proceeding to 366.26 hearing. At a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court appointed the minors' stepgrandmother as legal guardian for five of the minors. The agency appealed from the order, contending that the juvenile court erred when it relied on section 360, subdivision (a) to appointment the stepgrandmother as the legal guardian instead of proceeding directly to a section 366.26 hearing. The appellate court agreed that the juvenile court erred and reversed the order. The mother in this case had already received 18…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.B.
Case #: B210574
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/28/2009

An appeal was premature where the father was not yet aggrieved by a premature setting of a 12-month review hearing. A petition was filed regarding the minors on November 8, 2007, and a detention hearing was held. Neither parent appeared at the detention hearing, and the minors were ordered detained. The parents made their first appearance in juvenile court on May 7, 2008. The department filed an amended petition, which was sustained. The court ordered reunification services and set a 12-month review hearing for December 17, 2008. The court reasoned that it was a 12-month, and not a 6-month review…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Gabriel L.
Case #: D053805
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/27/2009

The court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the father's services where the minor was placed with the mother on family maintenance. The minor was removed from his parents for neglect and substance abuse issues. Both parents were offered services. The mother participated in services, but the father was incarcerated and then deported. After he returned, he failed to participate in any services. At a review hearing, the court placed the minor with the mother on family maintenance, and terminated the father's services. Father appealed, contending the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating his services. The appellate court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.C.
Case #: G040540
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/22/2008

The time limits for reunification services did not begin running until the minors were removed from both parents. The minors were originally detained from their mother's home in April, 2006, and placed with the previously noncustodial father. In September, 2007, the minors were again detained on a 387 petition. Parents received reunification services following the second detention. At a review hearing held in June, 2008, the minors contended that parents had already received more than two years of services, and it was therefore inappropriate to conduct a six-month review in June, 2008 and to continue services. The appellate court rejected…

View Full Summary