Taylor J. v. Janet W.

Filed 2/21/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re TAYLOR J., a Person Coming Under B248839 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK87897)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JANET W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark A. Borenstein, Judge. Reversed. Linda J. Vogel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________________

Janet W. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating reunification services for her and her 15-year-old daughter, Taylor J. The sole issue is whether substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided adequate reunification services to the family. (Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1158.)1 We conclude that the court’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW In August 2011, the juvenile court adjudicated 13-year-old Taylor a dependent of the court after finding that Taylor’s mother and her stepfather, Joseph P. “have a history of engaging in violent altercations, in [Taylor’s] presence”; that Joseph P. “was frequently under the influence of alcohol during these altercations; that on one occasion Joseph struck Taylor in the face inflicting bruises and scratches; and that Mother failed to protect Taylor from Joseph.” The court placed Taylor in foster care and ordered DCFS to provide Mother and Taylor with family reunification services. As part of its case plan the court ordered Mother to participate in DCFS-approved counseling including a “domestic violence support group” and “conjoint counseling” with Taylor if recommended by Taylor’s counselor. The court ordered DCFS to make “low cost” or “no cost” referrals for counseling. A month prior to the adjudication hearing, DCFS gave Mother two referral lists, one of the lists identified an agency in Duarte (near Monrovia where Mother lived) that provided “domestic violence services.” The other list was seven years old and did not list any counseling agencies near Mother’s home. Neither list included agencies that offered individual counseling for adults. The record contains no evidence that Mother attempted to contact any of these agencies except for the Pacific Clinic discussed below. At the six-month review hearing held in April 2012, the court received a Status Review Report from DCFS stating that Mother “will explore enrolling in [a] domestic