Opinion Link: http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2012/d060252.html
The California Superior Court of San Diego County reverses an order by the Juvenile Court of the same jurisdiction to end family reunification services and finds that the services shall be continued for an additional 6 months in effort to prove that Michelle and Tracy are able to competently parent their child (T.J).
Tracy J. (father) and Michelle B. (mother) seek review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services. Tracy and Michelle were found to be developmentally disabled and thus their son T.J. was taken from them nine days after his birth and placed into the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency). Tracy tested in the lower range of mildly mentally retarded due to a severe head injury he suffered as a child (non-genetic). Michelle was previously diagnosed with Prader-Willi syndrome (non-genetic) which supposedly was the cause of her obesity. She also had disproportioned arms in that they were short in comparison to her body which caused her difficulty in managing specific child care duties such as diapering, feeding, and cradling T.J. Michelle’s intellectual testing were all borderline to average rating.
T.J. was tested and found to be within normal developmental limits. He had asthma which required different treatments depending upon the severity of his attacks. Otherwise he was a healthy active child.
Tracy and Michelle were directed through the San Diego Regional Center (SDRC) to complete some cognitive tests and allowed one supervised visit a week for three to four hours with a review in six months. The initial review went well with only minor notes for improvement. The parents were noted as competent but still needed further instruction in feeding, holding, and clothing T.J. Visits were prolonged for an additional 12 months. Further parenting services were attended and their visitations were amended to unsupervised visits with notice to minor’s counsel, overnights, and a 60-day home visit. This modification caused increased concern, as their time was increased therefore giving more time for “incidents” to happen.
Thus the juvenile court found that returning T.J. to his parents would be detrimental to his well-being.
Michelle and Tracy contend that there is not enough evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings. They argue that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to prove their competency, that they could keep him safe, and that Michelle was not offered resources to cater to her (physical) disability and that if the reunification period was extended, they could meet the courts expectations.
The appellate court subsequently ordered that there was not substantial evidence to support that reasonable family reunification efforts were provided to Michelle and Tracy and that they deserve that opportunity. The court concluded that there was good cause to continue the review for an additional 6 months.
Key Terms: California, family law, family services, parental rights, child custody
No comments:
Post a Comment