Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No.CK73817, Stanley Genser, Juvenile Court Referee.
Grace Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Appellant Gary J. appeals from an order terminating reunification services with his children K.J. and Bryan J. Appellant claims that the juvenile court violated his right to due process of law when it denied his request for a contested hearing on the termination of reunification services. Finding no error, we affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
K.J., aged 6, and Bryan, aged 4, came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in July 2008 when DCFS received a referral alleging neglect and emotional abuse by mother Maria A. K.J. and Bryan were living with mother, maternal grandmother, and two older half-siblings. Following a home visit, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 to have the children detained. The petition alleged that mother had a history of substance abuse and frequently used drugs while K.J. and Bryan were under her care and supervision. It alleged that appellant failed to provide the children with the necessities of life, and that his whereabouts were unknown. The children were detained and subsequently placed with a relative. The juvenile court ordered DCFS to locate K.J. and Bryan’s father.
All unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Appellant was incarcerated in state prison. His history of arrests included charges for possession of narcotics. He told DCFS he wanted “to fight for [his children].” At a hearing in October 2008, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for both parents, and ordered both to complete parenting education and drug counseling programs, and participate in random drug testing. Appellant was released from prison in November 2008. Upon his release, he visited the children weekly until January 2009. Over the next two months, appellant did not appear for drug testing or enroll in any substance abuse programs. Mother enrolled in a residential drug treatment program and two outpatient drug programs. She tested negative for drugs eight times and had weekly monitored visits with the children. The court ordered continued reunification services for both parents.
As of August 2009, mother had continued to attend counseling and participate in random drug testing, and successfully completed a 10-week parenting class. She communicated regularly with DCFS, and had begun to have unmonitored visits with the children. Appellant enrolled in a six-month residential drug treatment program. After 90 days, he was alleged to have had a sexual relationship with a peer in the program. Appellant denied the allegation, voluntarily left the program, and cancelled a scheduled visit with the children. DCFS recommended termination of reunification services as to appellant. At a hearing, the juvenile court returned the children to mother. It denied appellant’s request for a contested hearing on the termination of reunification services, but granted his request for a hearing on visitation. Reunification services were terminated and this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues that the juvenile court’s denial of his request for a contested hearing on the termination of reunification services violated his right to due process of law.
Due process in dependency proceedings is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors. (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 757.) Contested hearings on the termination of reunification services are required when the dependent children are in foster care because “[t]he reunification phase of dependency proceedings is a critical aspect of the entire dependency system. If the parent fails to reunify with the minor, then the juvenile court must conduct a selection and implementation hearing, which may result in the permanent severance of the parent-child relationship.” (Id. at p. 755; see also David B. v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 772, 780.) But, “reunification services constitute a benefit; there is no constitutional ‘“entitlement”’ to those services.” (In re Aryanna C. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1242.) When dependent children are returned to one parent, and the noncustodial parent challenges the termination of reunification services, “the goal of reunifying with at least one parent had been achieved, and, thus, under section 364, [a] court ha[s] broad discretion to decide whether to continue to provide services....” for the noncustodial parent. (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 649.)
K.J. and Bryan had been returned to mother when appellant requested a contested hearing on the termination of reunification services. This was not a critical juncture in the proceedings presenting the prospect that appellant might lose custody of his children permanently. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.705.) The colloquy between appellant’s counsel and the court shows that a reason appellant wanted to continue reunification services was so DCFS would pay for his drug testing. The court granted appellant’s request for a contested hearing on visitation with K.J. and Bryan, and gave DCFS discretion to offer appellant random drug testing. Appellant retained the right to petition the court to change its orders pursuant to section 388. (§ 388, subd. (a).) Under these circumstances, appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated by the court’s denial of his request for a contested hearing on reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J.