Douglas M. v. Superior Court CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Douglas contends there was not substantial evidence presented to support the

finding he received reasonable reunification services. He argues the social worker did

not make sufficient efforts to help him obtain services or visitation while he was at

3 Chino, and she did not send him a parenting prison packet until just before the six-month

hearing. Rachel joins in and adopts his arguments.

In determining the sufficiency of reunification services the role of the appellate

court is to decide "whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the

juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v.

Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) The standard is not that the best

possible services were provided, but that reasonable services were provided under the

circumstances. (In re Misako R (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) The appellant bears the

burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re

Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)

Soon after Caleb was taken into protective custody, the social worker met with

Douglas at Vista and they discussed his…