Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2024 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Alejandro G.green2 sentences2016(See In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 124 [“[t]he juvenile court has the authority at the disposition hearing to deny services to a parent under a reunification bypass provision” under section 361.5, subdivision (b)].) Among the bypass provisions enumerated in subdivision (b) are: “(9) That the child has been found to be a child described in subdivision (g) of Section 300; that the parent or guardian of the child willfully abandoned the child, and the court finds that the abandonment itself constituted a serious danger to the child . . . . 2016(See In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 124 [“[t]he juvenile court has the authority at the disposition hearing to deny services to a parent under a reunification bypass provision” under section 361.5, subdivision (b)].) Among the bypass provisions enumerated in subdivision (b) are: “(9) That the child has been found to be a child described in subdivision (g) of Section 300; that the parent or guardian of the child willfully abandoned the child, and the court finds that the abandonment itself constituted a serious danger to the child . . . . | 2 | 2 |
San Francisco Human Services Agency v. Jeremiah J.green2 sentences2024This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) “When the court determines a bypass provision applies, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced with a legislative presumption that reunification services would be ‘ “an unwise use of governmental resources.” ’ ” (Ibid.) The bypass provisions at issue here—section 361. 2024This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) “When the court determines a bypass provision applies, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced with a legislative presumption that reunification services would be ‘ “an unwise use of governmental resources.” ’ ” (Ibid.) The bypass provisions at issue here—section 361. | 1 | 13 |
R.T. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions--also called reunification bypass provisions--to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) Subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11) “authorize the denial of services to a parent who has failed to reunify with another child or whose parental rights to another child were terminated if the court finds that the parent ‘has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the pr 2014This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 ].) Section 361.5(b)(10) and (11) “authorize the denial of services to a parent who has failed to reunify with another child or whose parental rights to another child were terminated if the court finds that the parent ‘has not subsequently made a reasonable eff | 1 | 5 |
CHERYL P. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2022(Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96 ; Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995-996.) When the juvenile court is required to apply the clear and convincing standard of proof, “the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Conservatorship of O.B., supra, at p. 1011.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(A), authorizes a juvenile court to deny services to a parent when “the court ordered termination of reunificati 2015(Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96 .) “We do not read the ‘reasonable effort’ language in the bypass provisions to mean that any effort by a parent, even if clearly genuine, to address the problems leading to removal will constitute a reasonable effort and as such render these provisions 7 inapplicable. | 1 | 3 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Pedro Z.green1 sentence2021A. Father Was Not Entitled to Reunification Services “ ‘As a general rule, reunification services are offered to parents whose children are removed from their custody in an effort to eliminate the conditions leading to loss of custody and facilitate reunification of parent and child.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) “Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions— 6 also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ ” (Ibid.) However, “when a child is adjudged a dependent but is placed in the custody | 1 | 1 |
MARDARDO F. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv 2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv | 1 | 1 |
In Re Baby Boy H. v. Sheila H.green2 sentences2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv 2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv | 1 | 1 |
In Re Joshua M.green2 sentences2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv 2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv | 1 | 1 |
In Re James C.green2 sentences2010(See In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 485 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [denial of reunification services pursuant to § 361.5(b)(12) proper where father was convicted of two violent felonies, including robbery with firearm use]; Seiser & Kumli, Cal. Juvenile Courts Practice and Procedure (2010) § 2.129[2][b][xii], p. 2-345.) Here, father was convicted of second degree robbery twice—in 2005 and again in 2006. 2010(See In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 485 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [denial of reunification services pursuant to § 361.5(b)(12) proper where father was convicted of two violent felonies, including robbery with firearm use]; Seiser & Kumli, Cal. Juvenile Courts Practice and Procedure (2010) § 2.129[2][b][xii], p. 2-345.) Here, father was convicted of second degree robbery twice—in 2005 and again in 2006. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Ethan N.green2 sentences2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv 2010This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ] (Baby Boy H.); see Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ] (Mardardo F.).) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this “general mandate of providing reunification services.” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Joshua M.); see Mardardo F, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 .) Section 361.5, subdiv | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Southern v. Superior Court of San Francisco Cnty.
green
2 sentences2022This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ [Citations.]” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)(A) provides for the denial of reunification services where a “child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it wou 2021This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ [Citations.] [¶] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) ‘reflects the Legislature’s desire to provide services to parents only where those services will facilitate the return of children to parental custody.’ [Citations.] When the court determines a bypass provision applies, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced with a legislativ | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Butte County Department of Employment & Social Services v. Jason H.
green
2 sentences2016Giselle and Danielle argue that, under two of the reunification bypass provisions in section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(9) and (b)(10), Joseph was not entitled to family reunification services because the juvenile court in the prior dependency proceeding in 2012-2013 found that Joseph had abandoned 8 We take judicial notice of this minute order pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d), and 459. 16 Giselle and Danielle (§ 300, subd. (g)) and he failed to reunify with the children in that proceeding.9 “‘Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunific 2016Giselle and Danielle argue that, under two of the reunification bypass provisions in section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(9) and (b)(10), Joseph was not entitled to family reunification services because the juvenile court in the prior dependency proceeding in 2012-2013 found that Joseph had abandoned 8 We take judicial notice of this minute order pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d), and 459. 16 Giselle and Danielle (§ 300, subd. (g)) and he failed to reunify with the children in that proceeding.9 “‘Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunific | 2 | 2016–2016 |
K.C. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) “When the court determines a bypass provision applies, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced with a legislative presumption that reunification services would be ‘ “an unwise use of governmental resources.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “As relevant here, services may be denied if the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Renee J. v. Superior Court
red
1 sentence2022(Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96 ; Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995-996.) When the juvenile court is required to apply the clear and convincing standard of proof, “the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Conservatorship of O.B., supra, at p. 1011.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(A), authorizes a juvenile court to deny services to a parent when “the court ordered termination of reunificati | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Napa County Department of Health & Human Services v. Shanon K.
green
1 sentence2022This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ [Citations.]” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)(A) provides for the denial of reunification services where a “child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it wou | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Harmony B.
green
1 sentence2022This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ [Citations.]” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)(A) provides for the denial of reunification services where a “child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it wou | 1 | 2022–2022 |
San Bernardino County Children & Family Services Department v. R.B.
green
1 sentence2022(See In re S.B. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 612, 621 .) An appellate court reviews the juvenile court’s findings under section 361.5 for substantial evidence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
AMBER K. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing reunification services.’ [Citations.]” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112 .) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)(A) provides for the denial of reunification services where a “child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it wou | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re William B.
green
1 sentence2021Subdivision (c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in paragraph . . . (6) . . . of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” Parents bear “the burden of proving, through competent testimony, the factual predicates to an order for reunification services . . . .” (In re A.E. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1124 , 1148.) To determine whether reunification is in the child’s best interest, “[t]he juvenile court should consider ‘a parent’s curre | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.