CURTIS F. v. Superior Court

*472 Opinion

Curtis F. (petitioner), the father of Cheyenne (the minor), seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.IB) to vacate the orders of respondent juvenile court denying petitioner reunification services and scheduling a hearing for May 11, 2000, to determine a permanent plan for the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; further undesignated section references are to this code). Petitioner also requests a stay of proceedings in respondent court.

Petitioner contends the evidence is insufficient to support the order by the juvenile court denying petitioner reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, because the record reflects one mental health professional suggested petitioner might benefit from receiving reunification services. We disagree and shall deny the petition and request for a stay.

Facts and Procedural Background

On August 18, 1999, the Sutter County Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the then days-old minor. The petition alleged generally that the minor was at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness because of domestic violence perpetrated by petitioner against the mother…

I respectfully dissent. I would issue a writ.

This case concerns “the profound importance of a denial of reunification services based on mental disability.” (In re Catherine S. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1253, 1257 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].)

My disagreement with the majority lies in our different interpretations of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (c) which provides in pertinent part that “. . . the court shall order reunification services unless competent evidence from mental health professionals establishes that, even with the provision of services, the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the time limits specified in subdivision (a)”

“[C]ompetent evidence from mental health professionals” means evidence from at least two professionals. (In re Rebecca H. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 825, 844 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 185 ]; see Seiser & Kumli, Cal. Juvenile Courts, Practice and Procedure (2000) § 2.129[2][a], p. 2-189.)

The majority and I disagree as to what constitutes “competent evidence” under section 361.5, subdivision (c). In the majority’s view, evidence may be “competent” if it consists of facts in the expert’s reports from which…

Darrell W. Larsen, Sutter County Counsel, and James Scanlon, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Curtis F. (petitioner), the father of Cheyenne (the minor), seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) to vacate the orders of respondent juvenile court denying petitioner reunification services and scheduling a hearing for May 11, 2000, to determine a permanent plan for the minor. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26; further undesignated section references are to this code). Petitioner also requests a stay of proceedings in respondent court.

Petitioner contends the evidence is insufficient to support the order by the juvenile court denying petitioner reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, because the record reflects one mental health professional suggested petitioner might benefit from receiving reunification services. We disagree and shall deny the petition and request for a stay.

On August 18, 1999, the Sutter County Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the-then days-old minor. The petition alleged generally that the minor was at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness…