CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Reunification & Visitation
............Reunification Required
 17 Cards On This Topic:
  • Presumption in favor of reunification services
  • Child welfare services must be provided to child removed from parent’s custody, for purpose of facilitating reunification of family.
  • Reunification plan shall be included in social study if removal of child recommended.
  • Adequate reunification services not provided where no evid. DHHS offered services to either parent re mother's ability to take her prescribed medication, which had led to removal, and no substantial evidence from any competent doctor.
  • DCFS not excused from providing mother reunification services b/t 12- and 18-mo. reviews by mother's claiming she completed counseling, as DCFS did not accept her claims and told her online programs were not acceptable.
  • Error to deny reunification to parents where the W&IC 300(e) abuse finding was based on a preponderance of the evidence, not the clear and convincing evidence required by W&IC 361.5(b)(5).
  • Error to deny reunification services to nondependent child under bypass provisions of W&IC 361.5(b)(15) where section did not apply to mother's actions in moving dependent child to AZ.
  • DCFS failed to present meaningful evidence to satisfy its burden of proving mother had not made reasonable efforts to treat problem with domestic violence; W&IC 361.5 (b)(10) standard is reasonable efforts, not success or failure.
  • HHSA did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that parents had not made reasonable efforts to treat problems that led to removal; court cannot apply "fruitless" standard in denying reunification.
  • Where near simultaneous termination of services in sibling's case and denial of services re C, 361.5(b)(10)'s 'has not ••subsequently•• made reasonable effort to treat problems,' refers to efforts made since removal of sibling.
  • Court erred in denying reunification services to mother based on previous dependency where reunification was successful.
  • Court couldn't rely on 18-mo. limit for reunif. services to parents whose children removed in denying services to mother whose children removed for first time per W&IC §387 after 18 mos family maint. services.
  • Placing children with relatives out of state and in distant county during reunification period is abuse of discretion; ICPC violated by conditional placement order.
  • Reversal required where reunification and visitation inadequate; no meaningful distinction between case with no reunification plan, and case where plan developed but not implemented.
  • Error to terminate reunification services when no reunification plan ever developed for father and inadequate services offered; statutory time limits do not apply; presumption favoring reunification.
  • Social study recommending removal shall contain detailed reunification plan tailored to needs of parties; services must be immediate and intensive.
  • Parents must be afforded opportunity for reunification services; services must be immediate and intensive.


    •