Reported / Citable
Background
San Diego County dependency proceedings began after domestic violence between the parents of Ly.R. and infant Li.R. The juvenile court initially detained the children and, at a contested January 2025 disposition, removed them from parental custody and ordered reunification services. Six months later it returned them to Mother under family maintenance, on the condition that she not live with Father.
After Mother resumed contact and overnight stays with Father, she relapsed on methamphetamine while the children were present, and Li.R. tested positive for the drug. The Agency filed supplemental petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387. The juvenile court again removed the children, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 permanency-planning hearing. Mother sought extraordinary writ relief, arguing that a 2025 amendment to section 361.49 restarted the reunification period at the later section 387 disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal denied the petition. In the published portion, it held that section 361.49’s reset applies only when the juvenile court retained the child in parental custody at the original disposition and later removed the child at a disposition under section 342 or 387. Subdivision (b)(2), which treats that later disposition as the initial disposition for a specified review provision, operates only within the circumstance described in subdivision (b)(1). It does not independently restart services every time a later supplemental petition results in removal.
Mother did not satisfy that condition. The children were removed and reunification services were ordered at the January 2025 initial disposition. Their later return under family maintenance did not change what happened at disposition, so the July 2026 section 387 order did not begin a new reunification period. Legislative history supported that reading: Assembly Bill 2664 addressed cases in which children remained with a parent at the initial disposition and services were not ordered until a later removal, not cases in which removal and services began at the outset.
In the unpublished portions, the court found substantial evidence for removal. Mother’s relapse, Li.R.’s methamphetamine exposure, a positive test, and Mother’s continued relationship with Father supported findings that the safety problems remained unresolved and no lesser means would adequately protect the children. The juvenile court also acted within its discretion in declining to extend services under section 352. Mother did not file the required written motion, and the record showed neither deficient services nor circumstances beyond her control. A strong bond and regular visits did not establish the extraordinary circumstances required to exceed statutory limits.
Key Takeaways
- Section 361.49 resets dependency timing only when custody was retained by the parent at the original disposition and removal first occurred at a later section 342 or 387 disposition.
- A later return to family maintenance does not erase an earlier removal order or restart services after a subsequent removal.
- The published statutory holding is citable, but the opinion’s removal and section 352 analyses are not certified for publication.
- Relapse, a child’s drug exposure, and renewed contact with an abusive partner can support a finding that alternatives short of removal will not protect the child.
- A request to extend reunification under section 352 ordinarily requires a timely written motion supported by declarations and extraordinary circumstances, not merely beneficial visitation or a parent-child bond.
Why It Matters
This first published construction of the amended statute gives California dependency practitioners a clear timing rule. The decisive question is what custody order the court made at the original disposition. When removal and reunification services began then, a later section 387 removal does not provide a second full services period.
Counsel should preserve the chronology of detention, disposition, family maintenance, and supplemental proceedings with precision. Requests for additional time also need procedural compliance and evidence that circumstances outside the parent’s control, or a failure to provide adequate services, justify delaying permanence for the child. The writ denial became final immediately upon filing.