In re R.M. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Sep 16, 2020 No. B303104Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's order denying reunification services to an incarcerated father who was convicted of violent felonies, finding that providing such services would delay permanency for the children.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in bypassing reunification services for a parent convicted of violent felonies under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12).
Whether the parent met his burden to show that reunification services were in the best interest of the children.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court “need not” provide reunification services, if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent “has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of [s]ection 667.5 of the Penal Code.””

“This case presents a similar circumstance where providing services would delay permanency for the Children and would not be in their best interest.”

Filed 9/16/20 In re R.M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re R.M. et al., Persons 2d Juv. No. B303104 Coming Under the Juvenile (Super. Ct. Nos. 19JV00301, Court Law. 19JV00302) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

R.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

R.M. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order bypassing reunification services for him and his two children (collectively Children) because Father was convicted of violent

felonies. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 361.5, subd. (b)(12).) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2019, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) received a referral after the Children’s mother2 tested positive for amphetamines and opiates when she gave birth to another child. The mother agreed to enter a residential treatment program while the maternal grandmother cared for the Children and the baby. About a month later, the mother left the program. CWS contacted the grandmother, who said that the mother came to the grandmother’s home but then left with the baby. CWS took the Children into protective custody. The whereabouts of the mother and the baby were unknown. CWS located Father, who was in prison. In August, CWS filed an amended petition, alleging that Father had a criminal history which “reflects a pattern of behavior associated with substance abuse and dangerous criminal acts that puts the [Children] at risk for abuse and/or neglect.” His criminal history includes, “multiple counts of [drug offenses], evading a police officer, possession of a controlled substance in prison, multiple counts of sex with a minor, . . . vehicle theft, battery, multiple parole violations, possession of a hypodermic needle and narcotic, possession of unlawful paraphernalia, kidnapping for [ransom], torture, and transport of a controlled substance in relation to a street gang.” The petition

In re R.M. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

AI Brief