Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In July 2023, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition alleging that mother C.W. committed robbery and carjacking while her four-year-old son Khalil was under her care, endangering him. The juvenile court detained Khalil, sustained the petition in November 2023, and ordered family reunification services including counseling and parenting classes. After mother gave birth to Kyra in December 2023, DCFS filed a separate petition as to Kyra; the court sustained it in May 2024, declared her a dependent in June 2024, and ordered reunification services including random and on-demand drug testing upon reasonable suspicion.
Mother made progress through 2024, and in September 2024 the court returned both children to her home under continued jurisdiction with family maintenance services. After DCFS received a report of mother's February 2025 robbery arrest, it filed a section 387 supplemental petition in March 2025, and the court removed the children from her custody. In June 2025 DCFS amended the petition to allege a positive cocaine test in May 2025 and filed a section 342 subsequent petition alleging substance abuse. In July 2025 the superior court terminated mother's probation and sentenced her to two years in prison.
In August 2025 the juvenile court sustained both petitions and ordered renewed reunification services. A review hearing set for January 30, 2026 was continued repeatedly because of mother's incarceration and logistical issues, and was held July 29, 2026 — more than three years after Khalil's initial removal and 27 months after Kyra's. The court found mother complied with her case plan and that DCFS provided reasonable services, terminated her reunification services, and set a section 366.26 permanency hearing for November 18, 2026. Mother petitioned for extraordinary writ relief, and Khalil's father M.F. joined the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal denied the petition. Although the July 2026 hearing was calendared as a section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review, the court held it was effectively a 24-month hearing under section 366.25 because both children had been removed from mother's custody at least two years earlier. At that stage, a parent is not entitled to additional reunification services as a matter of right, though she may seek a discretionary continuance under section 352. Because the termination was premised in part on a reasonable-services finding, the court also reviewed that finding for substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence supported the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCFS provided reasonable services. During the relevant period, the incarcerated mother participated in parenting courses, substance-abuse treatment, adult education, individual counseling, and reentry groups across three facilities, all tailored to the conduct underlying dependency jurisdiction. The court rejected mother's claims that DCFS failed to maintain adequate contact with her and her providers, distinguishing Amanda H. v. Superior Court, and rejected the argument that services were unreasonable for lacking a program tailored to Kyra's autism, reiterating that the standard is reasonableness under the circumstances, not the best services possible.
Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in declining a section 352 continuance. Both children were far past the 18-month threshold for reunification, and the law gives substantial weight to a minor's need for prompt resolution of custody status and a stable environment. The juvenile court's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
Key Takeaways
- Once a child has been removed for 24 months or more, the parent is not entitled to additional reunification services as of right; only a discretionary section 352 continuance remains available.
- A reasonable-services finding proved by clear and convincing evidence is reviewed for substantial evidence, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.
- Services tailored to the issues that led to dependency jurisdiction are generally reasonable; the standard is reasonableness under the circumstances, not whether better services could have been provided.
- A juvenile court does not abuse its discretion by declining to extend services when the children are far past the 18-month threshold and need permanency and stability.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the strict statutory time limits on family reunification and confirms that once the 24-month mark passes, the child's need for permanency and stability outweighs the parent's request for more time, even if prior services were arguably deficient.
It also clarifies that reasonable services means services reasonable under the circumstances: where a parent participated in appropriate, targeted programs, minor shortcomings in agency communication do not render the services unreasonable.