CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Periodic Review Hearings
.........Termination of Reunif. Proper
 20 Cards On This Topic:
  • Despite incarcerated F's substantial compliance with case plan, no abuse of discretion in denying further reunification services where he did not make substantial progress ••towards reunification•• with 3-yr.-old C w/in 6 mos.
  • Because mother's inaction created a substantial likelihood that reunification with C would not occur, W&IC 388(c)(1)(B) allowed the court to terminate her services while still offering services to father.
  • Reunification services properly terminated where F failed to make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs, and no substantial probability C could be returned to F w/in 6 mos.
  • As F did not participate in reunification services and made no progress in solving problems leading to removal, no abuse of discretion in terminating his services but ordering family maintenance services for mother.
  • Juvenile court may terminate reunification services to one parent of child under 3 when services are continued for other parent, regardless of whether selection and implementation hearing set.
  • Where F did not avail himself of services or visitation, termination of services to him was rationally related to legitimate govt interest in focusing resources on mother, who made distinct progress in reunification.
  • Juvenile court has statutory authority, on proper record after hearing, to terminate reunification services at any time, considering all circumstances, and carefully exercising its discretion.
  • Court abused discretion in continuing reunification services past 18-month limit given parents' repeated failure to "become adequate."
  • Reunification properly terminated despite compliance with case plan where nonconclusory reports showed substantial risk of detriment to Ms and acts of conduct by mother indicated inability to parent and protect.
  • Court erred in extending reunification beyond 18 months without considering Ms’ need for stability and without any evidence Ms could be returned to mother at end of another 6-mo. period.
  • Dispositive issue is not mother’s completing reunification plan but her progress in meeting goals of plan and alleviating cause of out-of-home placement.
  • Court not required to extend reunification where mother did not comply with previous, adequate reunification orders; substantial evidence supported §366.26 hearing order.
  • Parent’s failure to participate regularly in court ordered treatment programs is prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.
  • No error to deny further reunification services to incarcerated F where services would be detrimental to M; brief return to parental custody does not interrupt time period.
  • Court may deny reunification services to biological father who has not made efforts to be presumed father; biology insufficient to guarantee right to reunification.
  • Reunification services are voluntary and cannot be forced on unwilling or indifferent parent.
  • Parent’s violation of parole while termination proceedings pending is evidence that parent unlikely to complete reunification plan.
  • Termination of reunification services, reasonable under circumstances, upheld despite mother’s mental disability.
  • Juvenile court can relinquish jurisdiction over dependent child even though reunification ordered.
  • Cases where termination of reunification proper.


    •