In re A.T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/3/13  In re A.T. CA3

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 

 

 

 

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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

 

 
>

In re A.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   B.S.,                           Defendant and Appellant.	C071718   (Super. Ct. No. JD232427)

 

 

 

            Appellant’s
sole claim on appeal is that the juvenile court “erred because it made a
finding of reasonable efforts to return A.T. to a safe home despite the
Department’s failure to tailor [appellant’s] case plan to his circumstances as
an incarcerated parent.”  His claim lacks
merit and we affirm the orders of the juvenile
court.

Facts and Proceedings

            In April
2012, appellant was arrested on charges of felony domestic violence and child
abuse.  In May 2012, the href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Sacramento
County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) took A.T. into
protective custody because mother continued to deny the abuse, claiming the
injuries she suffered were self inflicted. 


            In June
2012, the Department recommended the juvenile court sustain the dependency
petition and order reunification services
for appellant (who was incarcerated) and mother.  The court adopted the Department’s
recommendation, sustained the petition, and ordered reunification services for
both parents.  In sustaining the
petition, the juvenile court found “[r]easonable efforts were made to prevent
or eliminate the need for removal from the home.”

            Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal.  

Discussion

            Appellant’s
only argument on appeal is that because the Department’s plan for services was
not tailored to his needs as an incarcerated parent, the Department failed to
make reasonable efforts to return the minor to a safe home.  Appellant is conflating two separate issues
that arise at different stages of dependency proceedings:  (1) reasonable efforts to return the minor to
a safe home and (2) the provision of reasonable reunification services. 

            Reunification
services are ordered at disposition,
not reviewed.  (See In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1779; Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 361.5, subds. (a)(1), (c) [reunification services begin
“with the dispositional hearing”; whether to order services is a decision made
at disposition].)  Whether reunification
services are reasonable or tailored to meet appellant’s needs are issues that
arise only in subsequent hearings (e.g., review hearings, termination of
services, and /or termination of parental rights).  (See, e.g., In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352 [incarcerated
parent claimed reunification services were not reasonable at hearing to
terminate parental rights];  >In re Monica C. (1994)
31 Cal.App.4th 296 [same].) 
Accordingly, whether appellant’s case plan is tailored to meet the needs
of an incarcerated parent, is irrelevant to a determination of whether the
Department made reasonable efforts to return the minor to a safe home.  Thus, appellant’s only claim fails.

Disposition

            The orders
of the juvenile court are affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                              HULL                           , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

          RAYE                           ,
P. J.

 

 

 

          HOCH                          ,
J.