Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Pedro Z.

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605·190 Cal. App. 4th 12·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1942
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 16, 2010No. B223478California2,708 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mallano, J.

Presumed father Pedro Z., Sr. (Father), who was incarcerated throughout these proceedings, appeals from an order denying him *16 family reunification services with his son, Pedro Z., Jr., bom in 2002, after the juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and placed Pedro with his mother, Norma D. (Mother), under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). 1

Father claims he was entitled to reunification services under section 361.5 as a matter of law. There is no statute or case specifically addressing the issue of whether a former custodial parent is entitled to reunification services under section 361.5 at the time of the disposition hearing when the child is placed with the other custodial parent. We hold that under these circumstances reunification services are not mandated under section 361.5. The order denying Father reunification services is affirmed.

BACKGROUND

Father, Mother, Pedro, and Pedro’s half sister, Ashley T., lived together in the family home. 2 Father was on probation for a drug-related offense when a…

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.