In re A.T. CA4/3

Filed 6/27/14 In re A.T. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G049647 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DP024267) v. OPINION B.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Reversed. Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen, and Debbie Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In a juvenile dependency proceeding, the court may bypass reunification services to a parent if the parent has previously failed to reunify with one of the minor’s siblings and has not made reasonable efforts to correct the problem that led to the prior 1 failure to reunify. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(10).) Here, the court applied that rule and denied mother reunification services with her youngest child, A.T. Mother appeals that ruling, arguing the court applied the wrong burden of proof and failed to make appropriate findings, and that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. We reverse on the former ground and thus do not reach the substantial evidence question.

FACTS

Mother has five children. Her first two children, G.C. (born 2006) and E.C. (born 2008) were with father Adolfo. Her latter three children, J.T. (born 2011), N.T. (born 2012), and A.T. (born 2013), were with father Gilbert. In 2009 a juvenile petition was filed in Los Angeles County concerning G.C. and E.C., alleging domestic violence by their father, Adolfo. That petition was dismissed based on mother and Adolfo’s agreement to participate in a voluntary family maintenance (VFM) program (§ 301), which involved counseling and parental instruction for both, as well as random drug testing for Adolfo. Although the parents were satisfactorily participating in VFM, the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) continued to receive referrals alleging domestic violence between mother and Adolfo, leading to the removal of G.C. and E.C. from Adolfo’s care. Ultimately a restraining order was issued preventing Adolfo from contacting mother. 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.