In re Monica V.
Filed 1/18/13 In re Monica V. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re MONICA
V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
STANISLAUS
COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARCO V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F065241
(Super. Ct. Nos. 516082, 516083, 516084)
THE COURT
APPEAL
from orders of the Superior Court of
County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Jacques
A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John
P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Marco V. appeals from a
his reunification services as to his 12-year-old daughter and 10 and
eight-year-old sons at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)).
court erred in terminating his services.
We disagree and affirm the order.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
The issues Marco raises in his appeal
are procedural rather than evidentiary.
Consequently, a brief summary of the case suffices.
In
April 2011, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took
Marco’s then 11-year-old daughter and eight and six-year-old sons into
protective custody, and filed an original dependency petition (§ 300)
alleging Marco physically abused his sons and their mother, and that the mother
failed to protect the children. Marco
was arrested.
In
mid-April 2011, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from Marco and
placed with their mother. The juvenile
court also set a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, which was conducted in
June. At the June hearing, the juvenile
court ordered the children removed from Marco’s custody and ordered
reunification services for him. The
juvenile court released the children to the custody of their mother under
family maintenance services. The
juvenile court also set a combined hearing in November 2011 to review mother’s
family maintenance and Marco’s family reunification services. In
October 2011, the agency removed the children from mother’s custody and filed a
supplemental petition (§ 387) alleging mother allowed her boyfriend and
Marco contact with the children knowing that both men had a significant history
of child abuse. The juvenile court
ordered the children detained and the agency placed them together in foster
care.
In
January 2012, at a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile
court sustained the supplemental petition, ordered the children removed from
mother and Marco, and ordered reunification for both parents. The juvenile court vacated the family
maintenance review hearing and set a 12-month review hearing in June 2012 for Marco
and a six-month review hearing in July 2012 for mother.
In
March 2012, Marco was arrested on multiple charges involving drugs, theft,
threats and a firearm. Prior to his
incarceration, according to the agency, he did not participate in his reunification
plan. In its report for the 12-month
review hearing, the agency recommended that the juvenile court terminate
Marco’s reunification services.
Marco
challenged the agency’s recommendation and testified at his contested review
hearing in June 2012. He testified he
was sentenced and expected to be released from custody by the end of 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
juvenile court terminated Marco’s reunification services but ordered continuing
visitation. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
Marco
contends the juvenile court miscalculated his reunification period as beginning
in June 2011 when the children were removed from his custody, rather than in
January 2012 when the children were removed from his and the mother’s custody. As a result of its miscalculation, he further
contends, the juvenile court erred in conducting a 12-month review hearing in
June 2012 and terminating his reunification
services. We disagree.
Once the juvenile court assumes
jurisdiction by adjudging a child a dependent under section 300, it may order
the child removed from parental custody and order family reunification
services. (§§ 361, subd. (c); 361.5, subd. (a).) Alternatively, the
the child to remain in parental custody under family
maintenance services.
(b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(a)(5).)
The provision of family
reunification services is governed by section 361.5, subdivision (a) (“the
statuteâ€), which provides:
“[F]or a
child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or
her parent or guardian, was three years of age or older, court-ordered services
shall be provided beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months
after the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49,
unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.â€
Under section 361.49, a child is
deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the
jurisdictional hearing or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the
child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her
parent. Services may be extended to 18
months from the date of the initial removal under the statute and in some cases
even beyond. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.)
Unlike family
reunification services, there is no statutory limitation on juvenile court
supervision under family maintenance.
(§ 16506, subd. (d).) When
supervision is no longer required, the juvenile court simply terminates
dependency. (In re Joel T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 263, 268.) However if, as occurred here,
of a supplemental petition, the juvenile court must conduct jurisdictional and
dispositional hearings. (§ 387; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 5.565(e).) At the
dispositional hearing on the supplemental petition, the juvenile court must
again decide whether to leave the child in parental custody or remove the child
and provide services. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rules 5.565(e)(2) & 5.695(a).)
With the above principles in mind,
we turn to the appeal. Though Marco
raises several issues, they all derive from a fundamentally flawed premise
expressed in the following quoted statement from his opening brief: “The timeline for parents to receive
reunification services does not start until the children are removed from the
custody of both parents.†Building on
this premise, Marco contends that since the children were removed from his and
mother’s custody for the first time in January 2012, that date marked the
beginning of his reunification period and January 2013 marked the twelfth
month. Had the juvenile court properly
applied the “correct law,†it would have continued services for him.
As we stated, Marco’s
premise is faulty, as are all the arguments that flow from it. It is faulty for
several reasons. First, Marco cites no
statutory authority for his premise.
Further, the two cases he cites, In
re A.C. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 636 (A.C.)
and In re Erika W. (1994) 28
Cal.App.4th 470, do not assist him. In
fact, the court in A.C. refutes
Marco’s premise. In summarizing the
various holdings pertaining to when “the section
361.5 clock begins …[,]†the
begins for both parents if the child is detained from their custody at the
onset of the dependency action, regardless of whether the court grants one
parent custody at the disposition under a family maintenance plan .…†(A.C.,
supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 648;
citing In re N.M. (2003) 108
Cal.App.4th 845, 852-855.)
the children were initially removed from Marco and the mother’s physical
custody on April 8, 2011, 60 days from which was June 8, 2011. The juvenile court conducted the jurisdictional
hearing on June 2, 2011, the earlier date, making it the date the children
entered foster care. Given the
children’s ages at the initial removal, the statute required the juvenile court
to conduct the 12-month review hearing no later than June 2012. Having done so, the juvenile court properly
applied the statute.
Because we
conclude that the juvenile court properly set and conducted a 12-month review
hearing in Marco’s case, we need not address his contention that the juvenile
court erred in making findings pertinent to a 12-month review hearing
(§ 366.21, subd. (f)), as opposed to a 6-month review hearing
(§ 366.21, subd. (e)). We find no
error.
DISPOSITION
The order is
affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Gomes, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All statutory references are to
the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
