CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Reunification & Visitation
............Reunification Not Required
 63 Cards On This Topic:
  • Reunification services may be denied if parents unable to benefit by them. Other grounds. Findings must be made by clear and convincing evidence.
  • Reunification services may be waived.
  • "Bypass" or "Fast-Track" cases; reunification not required.
  • Trial ct. correctly concluded that parents were subject to reunification bypass under W&IC §361.5(b)(4) where substantial evidence showed parents' neglect was substantial factor in their child's death.
  • Noncustodial F of C's half sibling properly denied reunification services under W&IC §361.5(b)(10)—had the Legislature intended to limit its application to custodial parents, it would have done so.
  • As mother not entitled to further services under W&IC 361.5(a), no bypass analysis required; because the court gave her more consideration under the incorrect statute than she deserved under section 361.5(a), error harmless.
  • Sufficient evidence supported denial of reunification to F where his prior KY sex abuse misdemeanor was equivalent to a violent felony under CA law.
  • Sex offender F properly denied services with C under W&IC 361.5(b)(16)—F required to register under state and federal law even though CA has not fully implemented SORNA.
  • Reunification services for presumed father and sons properly denied under W&IC 300 and 361.5(b)(7) where PF did not prove reunification was in Cs' best interests and court was correct in finding it was not.
  • As mother's criminal neglect was a substantial factor in 5-yr.-old's drug-related death, she was not entitled to reunification services for surviving Cs–court properly bypassed services and set permanent plan hearing.
  • W&IC 361.5(b)(12), allowing bypass of reunification services where parent has committed a "violent felony," does not violate parent's substantive due process rights when considered along with section 361.5(c).
  • Reunification services are not mandated under W&IC 361.5 for former custodial parent at disposition hearing when C is placed with the other custodial parent.
  • As F's resistance to treatment ordered as parole condition amounts to resistance to "court-ordered treatment" under W&IC 361.5(b)(13), no error in denying F reunification services.
  • Substantial evidence supported denial of reunification to mother as not in Cs' best interests where she allowed, among other things, boyfriend to physically abuse, and father to sexually abuse, Cs.
  • Under W&IC 361.5(b)(6), father can be denied reunification services with son based on father's abuse of son's half-siblings: term 'parent' refers to father's relationship to son, and not his relationship to son's siblings.
  • Even if biological father had not waived right to argue it, he did not establish his substantive due process rights were violated where evidence showed he was not a father w/in meaning of Kelsey S.
  • Because biological F was not similarly situated to biological mother, denying him reunification under W&IC 361.5 (a) did not violate equal protection.
  • Court may not order reunification services for biological father when a conclusively presumed father exists; opportunity to develop parent-child relationship not in C's best interests.
  • Trial court did not err in denying reunification services based on finding mother resisted drug treatment as required by W&IC 361.5 (b)(13).
  • Error to grant reunification services to mother who caused the death of another infant by abuse or neglect - services not in child's best interest.
  • Trial court did not err in terminating grandmother's probate court guardianship of grandsons without first providing her with reunification services.
  • Court properly denied reunif. services to mother per W&IC 361.5 (b)(5) & (6) even where it didn't determine who inflicted injuries: Denial of services proper to either parent on showing abuser was parent or someone known by parent.
  • Trial court may bypass reunification services if a parent's relationship with a minor's sibling has been permanently severed, whether by involuntary termination or voluntary relinquishment.
  • Juvenile ct. did not err in not making specific findings and in refusing reunification services to mother who failed to protect child from boyfriend's abuse.
  • Though incarcerated F waived right to challenge sufficiency of dependency allegations, allegations sufficient to confer jurisdiction on juv. court; substantial evidence supported jurisdictional and dispositional findings.
  • Court not required to order visitation between C and mother where grandmother agreed to, and did, become C's legal guardian.
  • W&IC 361.5 (b)(12) [now (b)(13)] applied to mother who resisted substance abuse treatment w/in 3 years of dependency petitions.
  • Finding that parent is suffering from mental disability, per Fam. Code §7820 et seq., must be supported by evidence of 2 qualified mental health experts.
  • A parent’s refusal to enter a drug rehabilitation program after agreeing to do so as a condition of probation constitutes “resistance” to treatment supporting an order for no reunification services.
  • Denial of reunif. services, and removal of C from developmentally disabled mother with history of parenting problems did not violate ADA or mother's constitutional rights.
  • As no evidence F was presumed father or could have reached presumed father status before end of reunification period, he was not entitled to reunification services.
  • Under W&IC §361.5 (b)(12) [now W&IC §361.5 (b)(13)], parent “resisted prior treatment” for chronic use of drugs when s/he participated in substance abuse program but continued to abuse illicit drugs, or refused to participate in program.
  • Court properly denied family reunification services per §361.5 (b)(10) for mother who failed to reunify with siblings despite fact that petition filed before court terminated services for siblings.
  • No evidence mother's waiver of reunif. services was anything but informed decision; statute satisfied, no evidence she was coerced and she waited 5 months to try to rescind waiver.
  • If severance of parental rights as to another C occurs before dispositional hearing re subject minor, reunification services may be denied to parent.
  • Juvenile ct. may deny reunification to parent under W&IC §361.5 (b)(10) and need not consider subsequent reasonable effort by parent after permanent plan ordered.
  • Reunif. services unwarranted per W&IC §361.5 (b)(10) where mother failed to reunify with sibling and make reasonable efforts to address problems; findings re her drug abuse and incarceration unnecessary.
  • Record supported trial ct.'s finding mother's neglect caused child's death; substantial evidence supported finding family reunification not in remaining siblings' best interest.
  • Reunification properly denied where F "resisted prior treatment" in meaning of Welf. & Inst. Code §361.5 (b)(12) by not benefiting from treatment for chronic use of illicit drugs & alcohol.
  • W&IC §361.5 (b)(10)(A) & (B) [now (b)(10) and (11)] must be read together; court must consider parent's reasonable efforts to treat problems that led to sibling removal and previous failure to reunify.
  • Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's finding mother resisted drug treatment during 3 years prior to filing of dependency petition.
  • Juvenile court may deny reunification where mother failed to reunify with minor’s siblings or half-siblings; Welf. & Inst. Code §361.5 (b)(10) is constitutional.
  • Juvenile ct. properly refused reunification services to father of baby made dependent because of his severe physical abuse.
  • Father convicted of child abuse resulting in death of 4 mo. old son need not be offered reunification services with surviving daughter.
  • Noncustodial parent who does not seek custody is not entitled to reunification services.
  • Only "presumed", not alleged or mere biological fathers, are "parents" entitled to reunification services as a matter of right.
  • While biological father not entitled to custody or reunification services without attaining presumed father status before end of reunification period, may move for hearing to reconsider (W&I 388).
  • Once court sustains supplemental petition to remove dependent child for 2d time, it may set for permanency planning if parent had 12 mos of reasonable services.
  • Reunification services not required under petition to terminate guardianship.
  • Finding of jurisdiction on subsequent petition does not trigger new reunification period; reunification mandated only at disposition on original dependency petition.
  • Court properly declined to provide reunification services to noncustodial parent who did not request custody.
  • Reunification services not mandatory where minor taken from one parent and placed with previously noncustodial parent.
  • W&I §361.5(b)(5) applies to parent who knows or reasonably should have known another person was physically abusing child, as well as to parent who personally abuses child.
  • No equal protection violation in refusing reunification to parent whose child comes under jurisdiction of juv. ct. via W&I 300(e) rather than 300(b): Parents not similarly situated.
  • Test for denial of reunification services based upon mental disability. Two experts required.
  • Denial of reunification services based on father’s inability to care for minor within 12 months only valid if due to mental disorder; not valid if based on lifestyle or work habits.
  • Reunification services properly denied where parent convicted of crime involving death of another child from abuse or neglect.
  • Stepparent not "parent," thus not entitled to reunification plan to facilitate return of minor to parental custody.
  • Parents with grave mental disorders properly denied reunification services; no due process violation.
  • Grandparents have no rights to reunification with minor.
  • Live-in boyfriend cannot be joined in dependency action and forced to comply with reunification plan.
  • In probate guardianship and Fam. Code custody proceedings, courts must determine which custody placement in M’s best interests but may not order reunification services.
  • Situations in which reunification is not required.


    •