Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealmotioncompliancedomestic violence
appealmotioncompliancedomestic violence

Related Cases

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated February 2, 2012, 741 F.3d 339
View Case »
Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317
View Case »
Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784
View Case »
Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014
View Case »
Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 477 U.S. 903, 106 S.Ct. 3270, 91 L.Ed.2d 561
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Albert T., 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 227, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,029, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,311

Facts

Peggy L. had two children, Alan and Albert, who were both detained by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to concerns about Peggy's ability to care for them, particularly Alan, who had significant emotional and behavioral issues. Alan was removed from Peggy's care after she reported being unable to manage his needs, and although Peggy participated in various services aimed at addressing her parenting and domestic violence issues, the juvenile court ultimately found her in partial compliance with the case plan. Following a series of incidents and evaluations, the court denied her reunification services for Albert based on a prior failure to reunify with Alan.

Peggy L. had two children, Alan and Albert, who were both detained by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to concerns about Peggy's ability to care for them, particularly Alan, who had significant emotional and behavioral issues. Alan was removed from Peggy's care after she reported being unable to manage his needs, and although Peggy participated in various services aimed at addressing her parenting and domestic violence issues, the juvenile court ultimately found her in partial compliance with the case plan. Following a series of incidents and evaluations, the court denied her reunification services for Albert based on a prior failure to reunify with Alan.

Issue

Did the juvenile court err in denying family reunification services to Peggy L. based on an implied finding that she had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of her other child?

Did the juvenile court err in denying family reunification services to Peggy L. based on an implied finding that she had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of her other child?

Rule

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), family reunification services may be denied if the court finds that a parent previously failed to reunify with a sibling and has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the sibling's removal.

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), family reunification services may be denied if the court finds that a parent previously failed to reunify with a sibling and has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the sibling's removal.

Analysis

The Court of Appeal analyzed whether the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to support its implied finding that Peggy had not made reasonable efforts to address the issues that led to Alan's removal. The appellate court noted that while Peggy had a history of domestic violence and had not fully resolved her issues, she had completed several court-ordered programs aimed at addressing these problems. The court emphasized that the standard for denying reunification services is not merely about the success of the parent's efforts but whether reasonable efforts were made.

The Court of Appeal analyzed whether the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to support its implied finding that Peggy had not made reasonable efforts to address the issues that led to Alan's removal. The appellate court noted that while Peggy had a history of domestic violence and had not fully resolved her issues, she had completed several court-ordered programs aimed at addressing these problems. The court emphasized that the standard for denying reunification services is not merely about the success of the parent's efforts but whether reasonable efforts were made.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's order denying reunification services to Peggy, concluding that the evidence did not support the finding that she had failed to make reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to her child's removal.

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's order denying reunification services to Peggy, concluding that the evidence did not support the finding that she had failed to make reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to her child's removal.

Who won?

Peggy L. prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence regarding her efforts to reunify with her child.

Peggy L. prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence regarding her efforts to reunify with her child.

You must be