Mark N. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 22·60 Cal. App. 2d 996·60 Cal. App. 4th 996·70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 603·98 Daily Journal DAR 455
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1998B115912California9,193 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

Mark N., the father of a dependent child, Sabrina N. (Sabrina), has filed a petition for an extraordinary writ of mandate (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.IB) after the respondent court terminated reunification services and set a permanent plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Adoption is the intended permanent plan. The father was incarcerated for all but one month of a seventeen-month reunification period. The father was not in custody for the first month of the reunification period. We find there was no substantial evidence the department of children and family services (the department) offered or provided reasonable reunification services to the father during any of the 17-month reunification period as required by law. We further conclude: Under section 366.22, subdivision (a), the court was not authorized to extend reunification services beyond the 18-month hearing; moreover, this case falls within the proscription of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2), which precludes termination of parental rights when, as here, the department has failed to offer or provide reasonable reunification services to a parent throughout the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.