Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition concerning Brianna S. and Abigail S. on June 18, 2025. As sustained on August 13, the petition alleged that their mother could not provide ongoing care and supervision and had a history of mental and emotional problems. The juvenile court found that Trent S., the children's father, was not an offending parent. At the August 26 disposition hearing, the court declared the children dependents, removed them from parental custody, and ordered reunification services. Father was ordered to attend individual counseling, the children were to receive age-appropriate counseling, and father was authorized nine hours of monitored visitation each week, with DCFS permitted to liberalize visits.
At the six-month review hearing on March 19, 2026, the juvenile court found that father was not yet in substantial compliance with his case plan and that returning the children would be detrimental. It nevertheless found by clear and convincing evidence that DCFS had provided reasonable services and ordered services to continue because there was a substantial probability of return within six months. Father timely appealed. The appellate court also took judicial notice of an October 27, 2026 review hearing at which the juvenile court again continued services and set a further review for December 15, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court first upheld the detriment determination under the deferential substantial-evidence standard. It relied on findings from a prior dependency case, the children's reports that they did not want to live with father and that belt discipline and threats had contributed to paranoia or anxiety, and Abigail's statement that father discouraged her from taking helpful prescribed medication. The court also relied on father's failure to release information about his individual therapy, which prevented the children's therapist from assessing when conjoint counseling could safely begin. Father's contrary evidence and arguments did not permit the appellate court to reweigh the evidence.
The court then vacated the reasonable-services finding. Although affirming the detriment finding arguably made that issue moot because the children would not immediately return and services were continuing, the court exercised its discretion to reach the merits to avoid possible collateral prejudice in later proceedings. It found insufficient proof that DCFS made reasonable efforts to provide nine hours of weekly monitored visitation, facilitate Abigail's regular individual counseling, or notify father of her psychiatric appointments after being ordered to do so. Reports describing six hours of weekly in-person visits and unspecified calls did not establish the full visitation entitlement, and DCFS did not identify evidence showing adequate remedial efforts. The court did not disturb the determination that the children were not yet ready for conjoint therapy.
Key Takeaways
- A parent can remain subject to a supported no-return order even when the appellate court vacates the agency's favorable reasonable-services finding.
- The court treated vague assurances about increasing visitation as insufficient to establish reasonable efforts to provide the court-ordered nine weekly hours.
- DCFS did not identify record evidence showing adequate efforts to secure Abigail's consistent individual counseling or to comply with the psychiatric-appointment notification order.
- The appellate court reached the services issue despite possible mootness because the finding could affect later dependency or family-law proceedings and future reunification efforts.
- The remand requires a new order finding that reasonable reunification services were not provided, while all other six-month review orders remain affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision separates two questions that can be conflated at a dependency review: whether returning children presently poses a substantial risk of detriment and whether the agency satisfied its independent obligation to provide reasonable reunification services. The father prevailed on the second question without obtaining the children's immediate return.
The opinion also illustrates how appellate review of a clear-and-convincing finding remains focused on whether the record supports a high degree of probability. General descriptions of services, without evidence addressing the specific visitation, counseling, and notification shortcomings, were insufficient here. The disposition directs entry of a new no-reasonable-services finding rather than merely leaving the issue unresolved.