CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Reunification & Visitation
............Prior Reunif. Terminated
15 Cards On This Topic:

Failure to reunify with sibling.

W&IC §361.5 (b)(11), in contrast to W&IC §361.5(b)(10), does not say the severance of parental rights to a sibling or half sibling must be pursuant to a W&IC provision or suggest termination of parental rights must occur in CA.

Juvenile court cannot deny F reunification for not making reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to removal of Cs' half-siblings where those problems were not the same as the alcohol and DV problems that led to removal of Cs.

Reunification properly denied for mother who failed to reunify with older Cs where "problems that led to removal" included drug abuse and substantial evidence showed she made no reasonable effort to treat the problem.

Juv. ct. erred in denying mother reunification services under W&I 361.5(b)(10) where half-brother previously removed from her under WI law—CA statute expressly requires child be removed "pursuant to Section 361."

Juvenile ct. did not err in finding the past termination of reunification services for C—though not the “sibling” specified in W&IC 361.5(b)(10) — warranted denial of further services for mother in this proceeding.

As W&IC 361.5(b)(10) is limited to previous term. of reunif. services for C's ••siblings or half siblings••, court erred in terminating services under it; however, parents not entitled to services as C not removed from their physical custody.

Substantial evidence supported finding that mother did not make “reasonable efforts” to treat problems that led to prior removal of C's brother so as to avoid W&IC 361(10) and (11) reunification bypass provisions.

No abuse of discretion in denying mother services where she made, at best, lackadaisical efforts to treat the problems which led to the removal of C's half siblings, primarily smoking.

Court need not consider a parent’s subsequent reasonable efforts when denying reunification services under W&IC §361.5 (b)(10)(A) [now (b)(10)] based on parent’s failure to reunify with child’s sibling.

Court did not err terminating parental rights after denying reunification services as to C under W&IC section 361.5 (b)(10) on same day it terminated services as to siblings.

Denial of reunification services under Welf. & Inst. §361.5(b)(10)(A) does not require court to consider parent’s subsequent efforts to treat problems that led to removal of child’s siblings.

W&IC 361.5 (b)(10)(B) [now (b)(11)] bypass provision can be appropriately applied to presumed father in current proceedings who was only an alleged or biological father during sibling's dependency proceedings.

F’s past conduct, which occurred before Welf. & Inst. Code §361.5 (b)(10) & (12) in effect, can properly be used to deny reunification services.

Given mother’s previous failures to rehabilitate, court’s decision to deny reunification services properly authorized by statute and supported by substantial evidence.