In re R.R. CA3

DISCUSSION

Mother contends that because the order terminating reunification services in the prior case is both illegal and not final, it cannot form the basis of a bypass order pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). We disagree. In case No. C074094, mother challenged the legality of the order terminating her services, arguing services could not be terminated as to only one parent. We disagreed, relying on the majority opinion in Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 60, 63, and 65 and declining to follow the dissent in that case. (In re S.R., supra, C074094 [at p. 5].) Mother also argued in case No. C074094 that the court abused its discretion in terminating her reunification services. We again disagreed, concluding the evidence was more than ample to support the exercise of the juvenile court’s discretion. (In re S.R., supra, C074094 [at pp.6-7].) Mother acknowledges that a juvenile court may terminate services for a sibling and immediately use that fact to support an order bypassing services for a second sibling. (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 842-843 (Harmony B.), review den.)

3 However, mother argues the Harmony B. court did not consider whether the…