In re C.W. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064412 · 2014-02-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J512043C
Trial judge: Carol Isackson
Outcome: dismissed — Dismissed.
Area: dependency
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:44Z · confidence high

The trial court set a combined 12- and 18-month review hearing for March 5, 2014, after finding the agency had not provided reasonable reunification services during the first six months. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as not ripe because the minor was still receiving services and had not yet suffered a final deprivation of the statutory 12-month service period.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Setting of the 12-month review hearing date (March 5, 2014) following a finding of no reasonable services “C.W.'s contention that he has not been afforded a remedy for the lack of reasonable services is not ripe for review.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's scheduling decision because it determined the appeal was not ripe. It held that an order setting a review hearing date is not an appealable order that deprives a party of services; rather, the party is only aggrieved if the court later makes a factual finding terminating services before the statutory period has elapsed. Since services were still ongoing at the time of the appeal, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying scheduling dispute.
Request for Judicial Notice of the November 19, 2013 minute order “We grant the request for judicial notice and deny the motion to augment the record.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court granted the request for judicial notice to establish that the minor was still receiving services as of November 19, 2013. This factual determination was necessary to support the court's conclusion that the appeal was not ripe, as it demonstrated that the statutory 12-month period of reasonable services had not yet concluded or been denied.
Motion to Augment the Record with the November 12, 2013 report “We grant the request for judicial notice and deny the motion to augment the record.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court denied the motion to augment the record, likely because the judicially noticed minute order was sufficient to establish the pendency of services, and the additional report was deemed unnecessary or improper for the limited purpose of determining ripeness. The denial did not affect the ultimate disposition, which relied on the judicially noticed facts.

Authorities

relied: In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962 — 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.
relied: In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205 — The Legislature did not intend a speedy resolution of the case to override the preservation of the family, especially given efforts to assure adequate reunification services.
relied: In re L.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 562 — An order setting a date for a review hearing is not based on any factual finding resulting in a reduction or deprivation of reunification services; a party is only aggrieved when the court makes such a factual finding.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the ripeness doctrine to dependency review hearings, citing In re L.B. to establish that scheduling orders are not final, appealable deprivations of services. It logically concludes that because the minor was still receiving services, the potential future deprivation of the full 12-month statutory period was not yet a concrete injury.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

At a special hearing after finding at the six-month review that the Agency had not provided reasonable reunification services, the juvenile court concluded it lacked authority to set the 12-month review hearing beyond 18 months from detention and set a combined 12- and 18-month review hearing for March 5, 2014, while indicating it would likely grant a section 352 continuance for good cause. The Court of Appeal took judicial notice of a later minute order showing services were continuing, denied augmentation of the record, and dismissed the minor's appeal as not ripe because he was still receiving services and had not yet been aggrieved by any finding reducing or terminating them.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order at August 2013 special hearing setting the combined 12- and 18-month review hearing for March 5, 2014, on the premise that no statutory or case law allowed the court to set the review hearing beyond the 18-month date “The court concluded there was no case or statutory law allowing it to set a 12- or 18-month review hearing beyond the 18-month date.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not decide whether the juvenile court misunderstood its discretion; it dismissed on ripeness, reasoning under In re L.B. that an order merely setting a review date involves no factual finding reducing or depriving the minor of services, so he is not yet aggrieved. That disposition is defensible given the trial court's stated inclination to continue the March hearing under section 352 and the continuing provision of services. However, the opinion's own quotation of In re Alvin R. (remedy may extend services beyond the 18-month hearing) suggests the trial court's legal premise was doubtful, and the opinion does not explain why a stated misapprehension of discretion in an appealable post-disposition order is not itself reviewable now, so I cannot fully endorse either the trial court's premise or the appellate court's silence on it.

Authorities

relied: In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962 — The remedy for failure to provide reasonable reunification services is an order for continued provision of services, even beyond the 18-month review hearing.
relied: In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205 — The Legislature's interest in speedy permanency does not override all other concerns, including preservation of the family and assurance that adequate reunification services are provided.
relied: In re L.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 562 — An order setting a date for a review hearing rests on no factual finding reducing or depriving a party of reunification services, so the party is not aggrieved until such a finding is made; the varying burdens at the six-, 12-, and 18-month hearings do not change this.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The ripeness dismissal is supported by In re L.B. and by the judicially noticed fact that services were still being provided, so the result is defensible. But the opinion quotes In re Alvin R. for a proposition that undercuts the trial court's stated belief that it lacked authority to set the hearing beyond 18 months, and it never explains why that apparent misapprehension of discretion in a post-disposition order is not reviewable immediately, nor does it reconcile taking judicial notice of post-order events while refusing augmentation on the same subject.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 2/26/14 In re C.W. CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re C.W., III, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D064412 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J512043C) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.W., III, Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carol Isackson, Judge. Dismissed.

Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor and Appellant.

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Emily K. Harlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. At the six-month review hearing in the dependency case of child C.W., III (C.W.), the juvenile court found the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) had not provided reasonable reunification services to C.W. and his parents, mother Carla G. and father C.W., Jr. (together the parents). The court set a new six- month review hearing approximately six months from the original six-month hearing and reset the 12-month review hearing for a date approximately six months after that (approximately 18 months from the date of detention). However, at a special hearing two months after the original six-month review hearing, the court set a combined 12- and 18- month review hearing 18 months from the date of detention. C.W. appeals, contending the court was unaware of and did not exercise its discretion to set the 12-month review hearing beyond the 18-month date, which it should have done to remedy the absence of reasonable services during the first six months of the dependency.

BACKGROUND

Shortly after his birth in December 1998, C.W. became a juvenile court dependent because his siblings had been physically abused. In July 2000, the court ordered a permanent plan of guardianship for C.W. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. In November 2003, the court reinstated jurisdiction and ordered that C.W. begin a 60-day trial visit with Carla. In August 2004, the court granted Carla custody of C.W. and terminated dependency jurisdiction.

In September 2012, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a new dependency petition for C.W., then 13 years old. (Welf. & Inst.

2 Code,1 § 300, subd. (c) [serious emotional damage].) The petition, as later amended, alleged: C.W. kicked Carla in the stomach; he beat his brothers with his fists; he attempted to hit a man with a baseball bat; he fondled his sister's breast and said he had seen his brother touching her inappropriately; and he watched pornography. He was in juvenile hall and had been adjudged mentally incompetent to stand trial.2 On September 7, 2012, C.W. was detained in a group home. On October 18, 2012, the court made a true finding on the petition, ordered C.W. placed in a group home and ordered reunification services for Carla and C.W. C.W.'s services included "therapy to address sexual[ly] inappropriate behaviors and mental health concerns"; sexual abuse group therapy if recommended by C.W.'s individual therapist; and monitoring of C.W.'s psychotropic medication. The court set a six-month review hearing for April 2013 and a 12-month review hearing for October. In January 2013, the court granted C.W., Jr., presumed father status and ordered reunification services for him. In April, the court set a contested six-month review hearing for May 31.

At the May 31, 2013, hearing, C.W.'s counsel argued the Agency had not provided reasonable services; specifically, C.W. had not received specialized therapy with a therapist who had a background in sexual abuse. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, the Agency had not provided reasonable services and ordered the Agency to provide services. The court set a new six-month review hearing for November 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 C.W. was charged with molestation in the juvenile delinquency case. The case was later dismissed. 3 19, vacated the October 12-month review hearing date and set a new 12-month review hearing for May 20, 2014.

In July 2013, the Agency requested a special hearing. The Agency filed points and authorities contending the court should have set the 12-month review hearing for a date no later than March 6, 2014, 18 months after detention. C.W.'s counsel filed opposition, arguing the Legislature intended that families with children older than three years receive at least 12 months of reasonable services, and extending the 12-month review date beyond the 18-month date after detention was the only remedy for the delay in providing services to C.W.

The special hearing took place in August 2013. The court concluded there was no case or statutory law allowing it to set a 12- or 18-month review hearing beyond the 18- month date. The court confirmed November 19 as the six-month date; determined March 6, 2014, was the 12- and 18-month review date; and set the 12- and 18-month review hearing for March 5. The court said that at the March 5 hearing, it would be inclined to grant a motion by C.W.'s counsel to continue the hearing for good cause (§ 352). The court defined good cause as C.W.'s continued need for services because "proper services were not provided during the original review period." The court said it would "give great weight to the original finding of no reasonable services having been provided during the original six-month period" and to C.W.'s need for services.

4 THE AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD

The Agency requests judicial notice of a November 19, 2013, six-month review minute order reflecting findings that C.W. was "being provided adequate and reasonable services" and reasonable services had been provided or offered to the parents. The minute order states that the court continued the parents' services, ordered C.W.'s therapist to provide progress reports to the social worker, and confirmed the March 5, 2014, 12- month review hearing. The Agency argues "the minor has received his statutory remedy for a no reasonable services finding of approximately six more months of reasonable services while this appeal has been pending"; the appeal is not ripe because services have not been terminated; and the appeal should be dismissed.

The Agency moves to augment the record on appeal with a report filed on November 12, 2013, for the November 19 hearing. The report "details the services provided by the Agency to [C.W. and the parents] since the last review hearing and their progress in those services" and recommends that services continue. The Agency argues the report "will assist this Court in determining that [C.W.]'s appeal is not yet ripe."

C.W. opposes the request for judicial notice, arguing the Agency's ultimate provision of reasonable services has no bearing on the court's August 7, 2013, recalculation of the 12-month review date. C.W. opposes the motion to augment the record, arguing the report is irrelevant, prejudicial and improper postjudgment evidence and "represents an attempt to create a record, not complete[] the record." C.W. also notes the report may contain information that is no longer accurate.

5 We grant the request for judicial notice and deny the motion to augment the record.

DISCUSSION

"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, 973-975.) "While the Legislature was concerned with reducing delays in arriving at a permanent resolution of the child's placement, we do not believe the Legislature intended a speedy resolution of the case to override all other concerns including 'the preservation of the family whenever possible' especially given the lengths to which the Legislature went to try to assure adequate reunification services were provided to the family." (In re Daniel G. (1994)

25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1211-1215.)

In general, in a dependency case for a child of C.W.'s age, "court-ordered services shall be provided beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian." (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) "[A] child shall be deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing . . . or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian." (§ 361.49.)

C.W. "entered foster care," within the meaning of section 361.49, on October 18, 2012, the date of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. At the May 31, 2013, six- month review hearing, the court found reasonable services had not been provided and 6 extended services for approximately six months, to November 19, 2013. On November 19, 2013, the court made a reasonable services finding and continued services for a period of approximately three and one-half months, to March 5, 2014.

C.W.'s contention that he has not been afforded a remedy for the lack of reasonable services is not ripe for review. The basis of his contention is the possibility that he may ultimately receive fewer than 12 months of reasonable reunification services.

If, at the March 5, 2014, hearing, the court terminates reunification services and does not return C.W. home, he will have received slightly more than nine months of services rather than the 12 months specified in section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A). At this time, however, he is still receiving services. Twelve months have not elapsed since May 31, 2013, when the court found that reasonable services had not been provided and ordered that services continue.

An order setting a date for a review hearing is not based on any factual finding resulting in a reduction or deprivation of reunification services. (In re L.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 562, 565.) Only when, and if, the court makes such a factual finding will C.W. be aggrieved. (Ibid.) This conclusion is not altered by the varying burdens applicable at the six-, 12- and 18-month review hearings. (Ibid.)

7 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

In Re LB B210574 · 2009-04-28
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Alvin R. B160567 · 2003-05-20
In Re Daniel G. B076977 · 1994-06-13