In re Jolie C.
Filed 2/11/10 In re Jolie C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re JOLIE C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES C., Defendant and Appellant. | D055267 (Super. Ct. No. NJ14050B) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Reversed with directions.
James C., father of dependent minor Jolie C., appeals a juvenile court order, made at a six-month review hearing, terminating his reunification services after finding reasonable services were provided or offered to him. James challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding he was provided with reasonable reunification services. He further contends the court erred by terminating his reunification services because: (1) there was no evidence that he failed to contact and visit Jolie; and (2) the court did not set a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.
The Agency concedes, and we agree, no substantial evidence supports a finding James received reasonable services. We further conclude the court could not terminate services he never received. Accordingly, we reverse the order and direct the juvenile court to provide James with six months of reunification services.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2008, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed an amended petition in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of three-year-old Jolie alleging her mother, Cathy R., tried to commit suicide by overdosing on prescription drugs and alcohol, she had a history of drug and alcohol abuse and she exposed Jolie to domestic violence.[2] The petition also alleged Jolie's father, James, admitted he had a history of drug use and was unable to prevent Cathy from using drugs. The court detained Jolie in out-of-home care.
According to Cathy, James lived somewhere in Texas. They had had no contact even though she was still legally married to him. The social worker spoke to James, who said he lived in Louisiana and worked in Texas. James said he and Cathy had been separated for 18 months, and he tried to contact the family every week or so. He last spoke to Cathy and Talia three months earlier, and they reported things were going well. Because his job required him to travel, he was unable to apply for custody of Jolie. However, he intended to have both Jolie and Talia placed with him in the future.
James admitted he had used methamphetamine with Cathy, and he was a recovering alcoholic. He also admitted being involved in domestic violence with Cathy but claimed she was the aggressor. James gave the social worker his address in Texas, and she mailed him a social history questionnaire, which he agreed to promptly complete and return.
The Agency recommended reunification services for Cathy. At a jurisdiction and disposition hearing, James, through counsel, requested services if the court did not place Jolie with him. The court sustained the allegations of the petition, declared Jolie a dependent, removed her from Cathy's custody and found it would be detrimental to place her with James. The court ordered reunification services for Cathy. When James's counsel indicated the Agency had not submitted a case plan for James, the court ordered one to be prepared. The Agency submitted James's case plan to the court on December 26, 2008.
The six-month review report listed James's address as being in Louisiana rather than Texas. The social worker reported James had not returned the social history questionnaire, he had not contacted her and he had not participated in reunification services. The social worker recommended further services for Cathy. Notice of the six-month review hearing was sent to James at his former Louisiana address.
At the six-month review hearing, the Agency recommended the court terminate James's services. County counsel argued the court had discretion to terminate a parent's services under section 366.21, subdivision (e) if that parent failed to contact and visit the child for a six-month period. In support of its position, county counsel argued the only contact James had with Jolie was one telephone call in November 2008. She further argued James was not currently able to care for Jolie, he did not want to participate in reunification services and he had not returned any of the forms sent to him by the social worker. County counsel also said the social worker had tried to provide James with all the referrals and services available to him, and she had given him contact information for Jolie. James's counsel objected to terminating his services.
The court received into evidence the Agency's status review report dated May 19, 2009, and an addendum report dated June 9, 2009. After considering this evidence and hearing argument of counsel, the court continued Jolie as a dependent in out-of-home care. It found James had been provided with reasonable services but had not made substantive progress with his case plan. Finding James had not contacted or visited Jolie in the past six months, the court terminated James's services but continued services for Cathy.
DISCUSSION
James challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the Agency provided him with reasonable reunification services. He asserts the Agency did not provide him with any services. Thus, he argues, the order terminating his reunification services must be reversed with directions to provide him with six months of services. The Agency and minor's counsel concede there was error, and we agree.
A
Whenever a minor is removed from parental custody, the court must order reunification services for the parents. ( 361.5.) The purpose of reunification services is to remedy the problems that led to the minor's removal. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362; M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 174.) Each reunification plan must be appropriate to the particular individual and based on the unique facts of the case. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Provision of reunification services implements the law's strong preference for maintaining the family relationship whenever possible. (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.)
Services are considered reasonable if the child welfare agency has " 'identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents . . . .' " (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972.) The reasonableness of the Agency's efforts is judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164; Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345.) We review the court's findings as to the adequacy of a reunification plan and the reasonableness of the Agency's efforts for substantial evidence. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)
B
As the Agency and minor's counsel concede, no substantial evidence supports the court's finding James was provided with reasonable reunification services. At the juvenile court's direction, the Agency prepared a case plan for James, which required him to participate in individual therapy, complete an Agency-approved parenting course and randomly drug test at the Agency's request. However, nothing in the record indicates the Agency ever sent the case plan to James. Further, other than speaking to James once by telephone on November 3, 2008, the social worker made no attempt to contact him or follow up with a list of approved out-of-state service providers or a requirement that he drug test.
Once the court ordered reunification services for James, the Agency had a duty to make a good faith effort to provide those services. (In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) There is no evidence the Agency provided services for James, maintained reasonable contact with him or made reasonable efforts to assist him. (See In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 972.) Without a valid finding that James received reasonable services, the court could not terminate his services.
While conceding the court's findings and order must be reversed, the Agency and minor's counsel ask that we direct the juvenile court to hold a new contested six-month review hearing to determine whether reasonable reunification services were provided to James. However, the remedy for failing to provide reasonable reunification services is an order for the continued provision of services. (In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 975.) Accordingly, we reverse the court's order and direct the juvenile court to provide James with six months of reunification services. (Ibid.)
C
In light of our holding, we need not address James's contention that terminating his reunification services was improper because no substantial evidence supports the court's finding he failed to contact and visit Jolie for six months within the meaning of section 366.21, subdivision (e). Although the parties disagree as to the proper interpretation of section 366.21, subdivision (e)whether the court can terminate reunification services at a six-month review hearing under the circumstances herethat issue is premature. James is entitled to receive six months of reunification services before the court can determine whether to terminate them.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating reunification services is reversed and the finding that James received reasonable services is vacated. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order a minimum of six months of reunification services.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] A petition was also filed on behalf of Jolie's 12-year-old sister Talia, who is not a subject of this appeal. James is not Talia's father.
