Freddie L. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 7/30/08 Freddie L. v. Super. Ct. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FREDDIE L., et al, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; | D052713 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. J516181) |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. |
Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Petition granted.
Freddie L. and Rachel L. (together the parents) seek review of juvenile court orders terminating their reunification services regarding the dependency of their daughter, R.L., and referring the case for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] After considering an agreement among the parties, we grant the parents' petitions and order the juvenile court to hold a new 18-month hearing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging Freddie had subjected four-month-old R.L. to physical abuse, including a spiral leg fracture and three rib fractures. R.L. was taken into protective custody after the parents took her to an emergency room and an x-ray revealed the leg fracture and three older rib fractures. Freddie said he heard a snap when he was attempting to swaddle R.L. Rachel mentioned Freddie had dropped R.L. on a tile floor about a month earlier. Freddie said two weeks earlier Rachel fell to the floor while holding R.L.
Freddie said he believed he had somehow caused the injury. R.L.'s babysitter reported Freddie had limited parenting skills, held R.L. incorrectly and handled her roughly. The court ordered R.L. detained in foster care. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, it found the allegations of the petition true, declared R.L. a dependent child of the court and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services.
The parents completed parenting classes, participated in psychological evaluations and therapy and had loving and appropriate visits with R.L., but Freddie sometimes had to be asked to treat her more carefully. At the six-month review hearing, the court continued services and ordered the parents would have unsupervised visitation. However, the court subsequently ordered Freddie's visits would be supervised because the parents were planning to divorce and there was concern that if Freddie were alone unsupervised with R.L., he might handle her too roughly. At the 12-month review hearing the court continued services.
For the 18-month hearing, the social worker reported that while 20-month-old R.L. was having an unsupervised visit with Rachel, Rachel told R.L. to stop at the top of a flight of stairs, and when Rachel looked away, R.L. fell down the stairs. The Agency recommended terminating services, noting neither parent had ever taken responsibility for R.L.'s initial injuries.
At the 18-month hearing, after receiving evidence and hearing testimony and argument, the court found reasonable services had been provided, but the parents had not made substantive progress with the provisions of their case plans, and returning R.L. to their care would create a substantial risk of detriment. It terminated services and referred the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
Freddie and Rachel petition for review of the court's orders. ( 366.26, subd. (e); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) This court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
Freddie and Rachel contend the court erred by not returning R.L. to their custody. They contend they made substantive progress in reunification services, and there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of a substantial risk of detriment to R.L. if she were returned to their care. Freddie also claims reasonable services were not provided. Alternatively, each parent asserts the court erred by not extending services beyond the 18-month date.
We do not reach these issues. The Agency concedes the order referring the matter for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing must be vacated. It proposes that a new 18-month hearing be held at which time the Agency may present a more complete and updated report addressing services to the parents. Freddie and Rachel each agree with this request. Accordingly, we grant the petitions and order the juvenile court to vacate the orders terminating reunification services and referring the matter for a section 366.26 hearing and direct the court to hold a new 18-month hearing.
DISPOSITION
Let a writ issue directing the juvenile court to vacate the orders that terminated reunifications services and referred the matter for a section 366.26 hearing and directing the court to hold a new 18-month hearing at which time the Agency may present an
updated report for the court's consideration. This opinion is final as to this court two days after filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264 (b)(3).) The request for stay is denied.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
