In re E.M. CA4/2

I. INTRODUCTION

C.M. (Mother) appeals from a dispositional order denying her reunification

services with her infant child, E.M., under the “bypass” provisions set forth in Welfare

and Institutions Code1 section 361.5.2 The juvenile court denied reunifications services

after finding that (1) Mother was not receiving reunification services for E.M.’s half

siblings after they were removed as the result of either severe sexual or physical abuse

(§ 361.5, subd. (b)(7)); and (2) Mother had previously failed to reunify with E.M.’s half

siblings and had not subsequently made reasonable efforts to address the problems

resulting in the half siblings prior removal (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10).)

On appeal, Mother argues that the order denying her reunification services should

be reversed because: (1) the juvenile court’s findings that section 361.5,

subdivisions (b)(7) and (b)(10) applied are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the

juvenile court applied an incorrect legal standard by purportedly requiring Mother to

disprove the application of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10); and (3) the best interests of

E.M. justified granting reunification services notwithstanding the…