In Re Jonathan M.

California Court of Appeal Mar 27, 1997 No. G020595Published

Before: Crosby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A juvenile court may not impose arbitrary geographical limitations, such as a 50-mile radius, on visitation and reunification services for incarcerated parents. Courts must conduct a meaningful, individualized evaluation of whether such services are detrimental to the minor rather than relying on distance as a sole, determinative factor.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court may impose an arbitrary geographical limitation on visitation and reunification services for an incarcerated parent.
Whether 'where appropriate' in Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) establishes a standard lesser than the detriment standard.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court may not abdicate its responsibility to create a reasonable visitation and transportation order by the simple talisman of a mileage limitation.”

“The use of arbitrary geographical limits on travel and visitation is contrary to that policy, and courts should not indulge in them.”

“Distance is a factor to be considered in the analysis. But it is not, by itself, determinative of the outcome.”

53 Cal.App.4th 1234 (1997) In re JONATHAN M., a Person coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

VERA A., Petitioner,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent;

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Docket No. G020595. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

March 27, 1997. [1235] COUNSEL

Ronald Y. Butler, Public Defender, Carl C. Holmes, Assistant Public Defender, Marri B. Derby, Paul T. DeQuattro, Lee I. Blumen and Sandra Williams, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Laurence M. Watson, County Counsel, and Gene Axelrod, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Parties in Interest.

Harold LaFlamme and Craig E. Arthur, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

[1236] OPINION

CROSBY, J.

(1) In this writ proceeding,[1] we are asked to consider an ongoing dispute between the local public defender and county counsel concerning whether the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) has a policy regarding arbitrary distance limits beyond which visitation with dependent children need not be provided to incarcerated parents as part of their reunification services. The public defender has submitted evidence to show there is such a policy, and we accept it per Code of Civil Procedure section 909.[2]

The county counsel vehemently denies such a policy exists. But he also argues, and we must agree, that the issue is almost entirely beside the point in any event. The court makes visitation orders, not SSA; and it is rarely, if ever, our role to censor the report writing policies of agencies in the executive branch. Thus, any such policy is only of moment insofar as it may tend to shed light on an allegedly similar impermissible policy of the juvenile court.

In Re Jonathan M.

AI Brief

CROSBY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief