Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP017137, Salvador Sarmiento, Judge.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Minor and Appellant, B.P.
Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent, N.O.
Michelle Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent, D.P.
OPINION
SILLS, P. J.
Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) and B.P., the minor, appeal from the order made at the six-month review hearing extending further reunification services to the parents, N.O. and D.P. The appellants claim there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the parents did not receive reasonable services. The parties to the appeal have stipulated that the order made at the six-month review hearing should be reversed and the case should be remanded for a new six-month review hearing before a different bench officer because the juvenile court’s finding of unreasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence. They also stipulate that the remittitur shall issue forthwith. We accept the stipulation and reverse.
FACTS
B.P.’s parents surrendered her to a hospital in Newport Beach on the day of her birth, June 8, 2008. Two days later, the parents changed their minds and said they wanted custody of the child. The child tested positive for morphine, and both parents admitted to recent drug use. SSA detained the child and a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set for late July.
The parents had two monitored visits with the child in June. The social worker gave them referrals for services and the foster mother’s email address to arrange further visits. Also in June, however, they missed two appointments with the social worker and an appointment with the child’s doctor. The social worker sent the parents a letter on July 18 and another on July 25 requesting an interview, but they did not respond. They also failed to appear at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 29. The court declared B.P. a dependent and ordered the parents to complete a drug treatment program, parenting education, counseling, and random drug testing.
In January 2009, the social worker reported the parents had been out of contact until December 2008, notwithstanding SSA’s extensive efforts to locate them, and had not visited the child. The father was located in jail on December 8; he told the social worker he and the mother had received mail from SSA but had ignored it. On December 16, the mother finally returned the social worker’s calls. The mother said they had not contacted SSA because they were “‘overwhelmed’ by all the things that the Agency was requiring them to do.” They stopped using drugs after the child’s birth and started attending Alcohol Anonymous meetings and perinatal classes, but they quit after two and one-half weeks. “[T]hey had to be out every day for some kind of class,... they ‘felt overwhelmed,’... it was very expensive to buy the gas to travel to the services, and it made them ‘want to use more.’” They used heroin every day until late October 2008.
The six-month review hearing began on February 3, 2009 and ended on March 2. The court found that the parents did not participate in services from July to early December 2008. After they contacted SSA in December, the social worker reviewed the case plan with the parents but did not provide them with new referrals because they had already received them in July 2008 and they did not request new information. The court found the social worker’s failure to provide the parents with new referrals was a failure to provide reasonable services. “Since this court is making a finding that no reasonable services were provided to the parents, it does not need to make any findings at this point in time on substantial probability of return....” A 12-month review hearing was set for June 29, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) governs six-month review hearings. For a child under three, if “the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to [Welfare and Institutions Code] Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child... may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e).) Appellants contend the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services have not been provided is unsupported by substantial evidence. The parents agree.
We have examined the record and find “[t]here is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal” in this case and “[t]he reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subds. (a)(8)(A) & (a)(8)(B).) Reversal is in the best interest of the parties because it will avoid prolonged litigation involving a dependent child under three years of age.
DISPOSITION
The orders made at the six-month review hearing are reversed and the case is remanded to the juvenile court for a new six-month review hearing before a different bench officer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (c).) The remittitur shall issue forthwith. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, J., ARONSON, J.