N.L. v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2021) · DecisionDepot
N.L. v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 2021 No. E076108Unpublished
Filed 2/11/21 N.L. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
N.L.,
Petitioner, E076108
v. (Super.Ct.No. INJ1800331)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Susanne S. Cho,
Judge. Petition denied.
Shannon M. Goldstein for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and
Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
1
N.L. (mother) petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to rule 8.452 of California
Rules of Court for an order of this court (i) setting aside the juvenile court’s order setting
a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 permanent plan selection hearing as to
one of her three children, H.D. (the child), and (ii) instructing the court to provide her
At the 18-month review hearing, the court is required to return the child to the
parent unless it finds by a preponderance of evidence that return would create a
substantial risk to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.
(§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) The court must also determine whether a preponderance of
evidence establishes receipt by the parent of reasonable services. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3);
Katie V., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 594-598.)
Although the court must make a finding as to whether reasonable services had
been provided, its authority to set the matter for a permanent plan selection hearing is not
11
conditioned on a reasonable services finding. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3); N.M. v. Superior
Court (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 796, 805-806 (N.M.).) That is, if the child cannot be returned
home, the court is required to set the matter for the selection hearing whether or not the
court finds reasonable services have been provided unless the parent comes within one of
two exceptional circumstances that provide the court authority to extend services beyond
the 18-month review.
One exceptional circumstance is the parent comes within subdivision (b) of
section 366.22. That provision authorizes the court to continue services up to but not
beyond the 24-month anniversary of the date the child was first taken into protective
custody if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that to do so would be in the child’s
best interests and if the parent comes within one of the following descriptions: (i) the
parent is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential
substance abuse treatment program, (ii) the parent was either a minor parent or a
nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing and is making significant and
consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return, or (iii) the parent
was recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the
United States Department of Homeland Security and is making significant and consistent
progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).)
The other exceptional circumstance that would allow the court to extend services
at the 18-month review is if the juvenile court finds the parent was never provided
reasonable services during the presumptive statutory minimum period for services (six
12
months for children under age three or 12 months for children ages three and up).
(§ 361.5, subd. (a)(4)(A); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 12, 20-21 (M.F.).)
2. In the circumstances presented here, the court was required to set the
permanent plan selection hearing at the 18-month review hearing
In the course of the 18-month hearing in this case, the court found return to mother
would create a substantial risk of detriment to the emotional and physical well-being of
the child, a finding that mother does not challenge. The court was, therefore, required to
terminate services and set the permanent plan selection hearing even if it found fault with
the Department’s provision of services unless mother came within one of the exceptional
circumstances permitting reunification efforts to be extended. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3);
N.M., supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 805-806, 808; M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1, 12,
20-21.)
The authorization for extending services provided for in subdivision (b) of section
366.22 did not apply to mother. She was not in a court-ordered residential substance
abuse treatment program; she was not a minor or non-minor dependent parent at the time
of the initial hearing; and she had not been recently discharged from incarceration,
institutionalization, or the custody Homeland Security. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).)
Mother appears to suggest that the second exceptional circumstance applied in her
case because the Department should have provided counseling and conjoint therapy
sessions, but it never did so. She has forfeited that argument by failing to challenge by a
timely appeal the juvenile court’s findings made at six- and 12-month review hearing that
13
the Department had provided reasonable services. (§ 395; In re A.K. (2017) 12
Cal.App.5th 492, 500-501.)
We note that, even if mother had not forfeited her right to contest the reasonable
services findings made at the six- and 12-month review hearings, the record does not
support mother’s claim she was never provided reasonable therapeutic services designed
to assist her in reunifying with the child. The Department promptly arranged for mental
health services to be provided to mother following the January 2019 hearing on
disposition, but she was discharged in May because she only attended twice. A new
therapist was arranged for in June, but in August, the mother was discharged due to her
lack of attendance. Thereafter, in spite of efforts by the Department to get referrals to
mother and help her with transportation, mother did not undertake participation in
therapeutic services until the month before the November 2019 contested hearing on the
12-month review.
After the 12-month review, conjoint therapy sessions were set to begin in February
2020, but mother canceled the first appointment just hours before the session. The
following week, she failed to show up. When family counseling was offered later in
February, mother said she would not be able to attend. When the Department enlisted a
14
new therapist to begin in August 2020, mother completed her first session but failed to
show up for the next three.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ and the request for stay are denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
SLOUGH J.
RAPHAEL J.
15
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court denied the mother's petition for extraordinary writ, holding that the juvenile court correctly terminated reunification services and set a permanent plan selection hearing because the mother failed to qualify for an extension of services and the Department provided reasonable services.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing at the 18-month review.
Whether the Department provided reasonable reunification services to the mother.
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court was, therefore, required to terminate services and set the permanent plan selection hearing even if it found fault with the Department’s provision of services unless mother came within one of the exceptional circumstances”
“The standard is whether they were reasonable in the circumstances.”
“In the circumstances presented here, the court was required to set the permanent plan selection hearing at the 18-month review hearing”