In re M.O.
M.O., the daughter of T.C. (mother), was placed with a foster family when she was diagnosed with a life-threatening medical condition that neither mother nor father, T.O., Sr., could deal with at the time. The first time we considered this case, we concluded that the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (the agency) had not provided mother with reasonable reunification services and reversed the order terminating reunification services issued after the first 12 month review hearing. This appeal is from the order issued after the second 12-month review was held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f).[2] As we shall explain, we conclude the juvenile court erred (1) in denying mothers request for a contested hearing, (2) in concluding compliance was required with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), and (3) in considering M.O.s bond with her foster parents before reunification services properly were terminated. Thus, Court will reverse the order issued after the 12 month review and remand for another 12 month review, including a contested hearing if mother requests one.
Comments on In re M.O.