Opinion
D059492 Super. Ct. No. J517902A
10-12-2011
In re ISABELLA P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE P., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Martindill, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Jose P. appeals following the six-month review hearing in the dependency case of his daughter, Isabella P. Jose contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's finding that he was provided reasonable reunification services. He asks us to reverse that finding, enter a new finding that reasonable services were not provided and order the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) to provide services for six additional months. The Agency "concedes the need for a reversal for the limited purpose of amending the . . . minute order to enter a finding that reasonable services were not provided to [Jose]." We agree the reasonable services finding must be reversed.
BACKGROUND
In August 2010 the Agency filed a dependency petition for eight-year-old Isabella based on domestic violence between her mother and the mother's boyfriend. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Isabella was detained with relatives. On September 8 the court made a true finding on the petition, ordered Isabella placed with relatives and ordered reunification services for Jose. On December 20 the social worker told Jose the court had not ordered reunification services for him. On March 2, 2011, the social worker wrote Jose a letter acknowledging her error. At the six-month review hearing on April 1, the court found the Agency had provided or offered Jose reasonable services but he had made no progress. The court extended his services to the 12-month date in light of "communication and case management difficulties" for which both the Agency and Jose were responsible.
DISCUSSION
At the six-month review hearing, the court shall determine whether reasonable reunification services have been offered or provided to the parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e).) Here, for more than two months of the six-month review period, the social worker believed, and led Jose to believe, that he was not entitled to services. During the two-month period the Agency made no effort to offer or provide Jose any services. Thus, the finding that Jose was provided or offered reasonable services is unsupported by substantial evidence. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 544-545.)
"The remedy for a failure to provide reasonable reunification services is an order for the continued provision of services, even beyond the 18-month review hearing." (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 975.) At this time, the issue of Jose's entitlement to six more months of services is not ripe. The issue will become ripe only if the juvenile court terminates Jose's services.
DISPOSITION
The finding that Jose was offered or provided reasonable reunification services is reversed. The case is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to enter a new finding that Jose was not offered or provided reasonable reunification services and to amend its minute order accordingly. In all other respects the order is affirmed. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the remittitur is to issue forthwith (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1)).
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.