Opinion
G063156
03-26-2024
In re F.W., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. E.P., Defendant and Appellant. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 22DP0831 Joseph Kang, Judge. Affirmed.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SANCHEZ, J.
E.P. (Father) appeals from an order at the 12-month review hearing finding the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) provided reasonable reunification services and ordering another period of reunification services to Father. He contends the court's finding that reasonable services were offered is not supported by substantial evidence and requests another period of reunification to reunify with his son, F.W. Even assuming the court erred, Father already received the remedy he requests on appeal. To the extent he requests an order for additional reunification services up until a 24-month review hearing, the court has discretion to offer an additional review period at the 18-month review hearing. We cannot preemptively rule on the 18-month review findings and orders before they have been appealed. We accordingly affirm the order.
FACTS
Relevant background facts are set forth in our earlier opinion and are not fully repeated here. (See In re E.W. et al. (Apr. 26, 2023, G061914) [nonpub. opn.].)
Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition
Father is the presumed father of E.W, Z.W., and F.W. (collectively Minors). Minors were taken into protective custody in July 2022 after law enforcement responded to a 911 call placed by E.W. and Z.W. Minors were detained and, in October 2022, following a dispositional/jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Minors came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (c), and (g), declared them to be dependent children, and vested custody with SSA. The court also ordered reunification services for Father, denied reunifications services for Mother (whose whereabouts remained unknown), and approved the case plan recommended by SSA. Father appealed from the jurisdictional/disposition order, and we affirmed the court's order finding substantial evidence supported jurisdictional findings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) and declined to address the other statutory grounds. (In re E.W. et al., supra, G061914.)
First Reunification Period
Father's case plan required him to complete counseling and a parent education program. SSA reported Father's cooperation with his case plan was minimal. He did not sign his case plan and was unwilling to participate in any reunification services. He also was not willing to provide his location to SSA. SSA recommended reunification services as to F.W. be continued to the 12-month review hearing.
At the six-month status review hearing in May 2023, the court found reasonable reunification services were offered to Father. It also found Father's extent of progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was minimal, but there was a substantial probability F.W. may be returned to Father within six months. The court accordingly continued reunification services and set a 12-month review hearing in September 2023.
Second Reunification Period
SSA reported Father's progress was minimal during the second reunification period. SSA had contact with Father on three occasions in June, July, and August 2023. Father was unwilling to participate in reunification services or provide his location until August 14, 2023. On that date, Father consented to the case plan, agreed to fully cooperate, and participate in reunification services, and indicated he intended to reunify with Minors. SSA then sent a referral for counseling and parent education and said Father would be notified as soon as agencies were identified and able to provide services to Father. F.W., who remained with his grandmother in Texas, stated he "sometimes" wanted visitations and phone calls with Father. SSA recommended reunification services be continued.
At the 12-month review hearing on September 15, 2023, the court found reasonable reunification services were offered to Father. It also found Father's extent of progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was minimal, but there was a substantial probability F.W. may be returned to Father within six months. The court adopted a similar case plan and visitation plan, continued reunification services, and set an 18-month review hearing in January 2024. Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the court erred by finding SSA provided reasonable reunification services at the 12-month review hearing. He argues his lack of housing was a main factor in his ability to reunify with F.W., but SSA did not provide housing services beyond "potentially referrals . . . in the time between expressing serious desire to reunify . . . and the 12-month review hearing." As noted ante, Father told SSA he wanted to reunify with Minors and participate in services in August 2023-about one month before the 12-month review hearing. Father also claims he was not given any visitation with F.W. during the second reunification period. He accordingly requests another reunification period. For the reasons below, Father has suffered no prejudice because he has already received an additional reunification period.
"When a child has been removed from a parent's custody, the court ordinarily must order child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family." (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 (Michael G.).) The purpose of reunification services is to remedy the problems that led to the child's removal. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362.) At each review hearing, the court must evaluate the adequacy of the reunification services offered and the parent's progress. (Michael G., at p. 625.) To support a finding of reasonable services, "the record must show the agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the duration of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents when compliance was difficult." (Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 420.) "The adequacy of the plan and the agency's efforts are judged according to the specific circumstances of each case." (Ibid.) A juvenile court must find the agency provided reasonable services based on clear and convincing evidence. (Michael G., at p. 625.) We review a juvenile court's finding for substantial evidence. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.)
Here, even assuming the court erred by finding SSA had provided reasonable reunification services, Father suffered no prejudice. If "a parent has not been afforded reasonable reunification services, the remedy is to extend the reunification period, and order continued services." (In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 973-974.) Father received this remedy. At the 12-month review hearing, the court continued reunification services and set an 18-month review hearing in January 2024. To the extent Father requests an additional period of reunification services beyond the 18-month review hearing, we cannot preemptively rule on the court's 18-month review findings and orders before they have been appealed. In Michael G., our Supreme Court held that "while the dependency law does not categorically forbid courts from extending services past 18 months, neither does it require them to do so in every case in which they find reasonable services were not offered in the most recent review period." (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 627.) At the 18-month review hearing, the court accordingly has discretion to offer an additional review period. (Id. at pp. 634-635.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.