Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
J.S., the father of D.S. and M.S., sought extraordinary writ relief from juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services obtained a protective custody warrant in February 2025 after allegations that the incarcerated father had left the children with his girlfriend. Police responded after the children’s mother arrived and demanded that they leave with her; the children reported feeling unsafe and described possible drug use, while officers found mother incoherent and confused.
The dependency petition alleged father’s untreated substance abuse, substance-abuse-related criminal history, and failure to arrange legally documented care before his incarceration. The juvenile court appointed counsel and detained the children after father was not transported to the detention hearing despite a prisoner-appearance order. Following a contested April 2025 hearing at which father was present and out of custody, the court sustained the amended petition and ordered reunification services. At the six-month review, the court ordered an additional six months of services, although CWS reported incomplete treatment engagement, missed testing, and a positive alcohol test.
Before the 12-month review, CWS recommended ending services. It reported additional positive alcohol tests, missed tests, and repeated findings that father did not meet treatment criteria, alongside a program manager’s recommendation for further monitoring and assessment. At the July 2026 12-month review hearing, the CWS supervisor testified that father was not in compliance with the substance-abuse part of his case plan; although he enrolled in the Grover Beach Program, father had not started the full program and was not currently testing. Father testified that he had addressed past alcohol problems, including two prior DUIs, attended Alcoholics Anonymous and therapy, and drank only once or twice monthly. The juvenile court could not find a substantial probability or likelihood that either parent could resolve their sobriety issues and, consequently, the issues which negatively impact the children’s safety within the time remaining, characterized father’s progress as minimal, terminated services, and set the section 366.26 hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected father’s claim that failure to transport him to the initial detention hearing violated due process. Relying on the version of Penal Code section 2625 then in effect, the court explained that production was required for specified proceedings, including proceedings to adjudicate a prisoner’s child a dependent child, but was permissive for other dependency hearings. Because father was not statutorily entitled to attend the initial detention hearing, the silent record concerning transportation did not establish denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court also noted that prisoners have no constitutional right to personal attendance at every kind of hearing; notice and an opportunity to be heard must suit the nature of the case.
The court then reviewed the termination of services under the substantial-probability standard governing continuation after a 12-month review. That standard requires findings concerning regular contact and visitation, significant progress in resolving the problems causing removal, and demonstrated capacity to complete treatment objectives and provide for the child’s safety and needs. The appellate court upheld supported findings under substantial-evidence review, resolving conflicts and legitimate inferences in favor of the juvenile court’s determinations.
Applying that standard, the court found substantial evidence that father had not made significant progress or demonstrated the required capacity. His case plan required a substance-abuse assessment and compliance with program recommendations, but he inadequately engaged despite multiple opportunities, tested only intermittently, and had positive and missed tests. The juvenile court characterized his progress as minimal. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that services were properly terminated and a permanency planning hearing properly set, and denied the petition for extraordinary writ relief.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to transport an incarcerated parent to an initial detention hearing did not establish a due process violation under the statutory framework applied here.
- The opinion distinguishes mandatory prisoner production for specified dependency proceedings from permissive production for other dependency hearings.
- A footnote states that Penal Code section 2625 was amended effective January 1, 2026 to add hearings requiring transportation.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that father had not made significant progress despite completing some services and participating in others.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petition for extraordinary writ relief and left the orders terminating reunification services and setting the permanency planning hearing in place.
Why It Matters
The decision applies deferential substantial-evidence review to a juvenile court’s assessment of reunification progress, emphasizing the complete record of treatment engagement and testing rather than isolated accomplishments. It also explains why the transportation issue did not supply an independent basis for relief on the facts and statutory timing presented.
The opinion is expressly not certified for publication, and its transportation analysis addresses the law governing the earlier detention hearing while acknowledging a later statutory amendment. The ruling resolves father’s writ petition; it does not itself decide the children’s ultimate permanent plan.