may schedule hearing in California

2025But this inquiry does not require the court to schedule a .26 hearing (‘the court may schedule a hearing’). [Citations.] Instead, it authorizes the court to set such a hearing if the required findings have been made.” (M.V., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 175–176; see also F.K., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at pp. 934–935.) “The second determination called for by the third paragraph of section 366.21, subdivision (e), protects parents and guardians against premature .26 hearings.

2024Thus, if “the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3), italics added.) “Section 366.21, subdivision (e), places discretion in the hands of the trial court as to whether to schedule a hearing to terminate parental rights.” (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 179 (M.V.).) “At the six-month review, the court has discretion to continue the case and forebear from sch

2026(See id. [reversing based on insufficient evidence of lesser alternatives where neither the Agency nor the juvenile court considered ordering the mother to leave the home as the children’s counsel had requested].) 4 The amount of time a child under three years old spends out of the parent’s custody is particularly important because for such young children the court may schedule a hearing to address termination of parental rights as early as six months after the initial disposition hearing or 12 months after the child entered foster care, whichever is earlier. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1), (3); see

2024(Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 843 .) This is because the “ ‘ “unique developmental needs of infants and toddlers” ’ [citation] justif[y] a greater emphasis on establishing permanency and stability earlier in the dependency process.” (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 175 (M.V.).) Thus, if “the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court- ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3).) Howe

2024Thus, if “the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3), italics added.) “Section 366.21, subdivision (e), places discretion in the hands of the trial court as to whether to schedule a hearing to terminate parental rights.” (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 179 (M.V.).) “At the six-month review, the court has discretion to continue the case and forebear from sch

2014(M.V., at p. 176; see also S.T. v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1015-1016 .) If the court at the six-month review hearing exercises its discretion to set a .26 hearing within 120 days, it must terminate reunification services at that time: “In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.

2013But this inquiry does not require the court to schedule a .26 hearing (‘the court may schedule a hearing’). (§ 366.21, subd. (e), italics added; see In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 62 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 435 ] [‘The statute makes clear that the court has discretion to set a section 366.26 hearing at the six-month review hearing under specified circumstances . . . .’ (italics added)].) Instead, it authorizes the court to set such a hearing.if the required findings have been made.” (M.V., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 175-176.) “The second determination called for by the third paragraph o

2013But this inquiry does not require the court to schedule a .26 hearing (‘the court may schedule a hearing’). (§ 366.21, subd. (e), italics added; see In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 62 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 435 ] [‘The statute makes clear that the court has discretion to set a section 366.26 hearing at the six-month review hearing under specified circumstances . . . .’ (italics added)].) Instead, it authorizes the court to set such a hearing.if the required findings have been made.” (M.V., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 175-176.) “The second determination called for by the third paragraph o

2007(See In re Christina A., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1160 .) The question whether to return the child to parental custody properly focuses on the well-being of the child at the time of the review hearing: “[Placement must continue regardless of whether that detriment mirrors the harm which had required the child’s removal from parental custody.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 900 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 ].) Different rules apply at the six-month hearing stage if the dependent child was under the age of three on the date of the initial removal: “If ... the court finds by clear and con

2007(See In re Christina A., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1160 .) The question whether to return the child to parental custody properly focuses on the well-being of the child at the time of the review hearing: “[Placement must continue regardless of whether that detriment mirrors the harm which had required the child’s removal from parental custody.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 900 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 ].) Different rules apply at the six-month hearing stage if the dependent child was under the age of three on the date of the initial removal: “If ... the court finds by clear and con

2024If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child . . . may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.’ (§ 366.21, subd. (e), italics added.)” (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 175 .) “Reunification services for incarcerated parents are specifically governed by section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), which provides, ‘the court shall order reasonable services unless the court determines, by clear and convinc

2021(Fabian L. v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1028 .) Here, substantial evidence—indeed, overwhelming evidence— supported the court’s finding that Father failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in his treatment plan.

2005If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days." This paragraph was interpreted in In re Monique S. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 677 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 863 ( Monique S. ).

2005If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days." This paragraph was interpreted in In re Monique S. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 677 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 863 ( Monique S. ).

2007(See In re Christina A., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1160 .) The question whether to return the child to parental custody properly focuses on the well-being of the child at the time of the review hearing: “[Placement must continue regardless of whether that detriment mirrors the harm which had required the child’s removal from parental custody.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 900 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 ].) Different rules apply at the six-month hearing stage if the dependent child was under the age of three on the date of the initial removal: “If ... the court finds by clear and con

2007(See In re Christina A., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1160 .) The question whether to return the child to parental custody properly focuses on the well-being of the child at the time of the review hearing: “[Placement must continue regardless of whether that detriment mirrors the harm which had required the child’s removal from parental custody.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 900 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 ].) Different rules apply at the six-month hearing stage if the dependent child was under the age of three on the date of the initial removal: “If ... the court finds by clear and con

2025Notwithstanding any findings made pursuant to the first determination, the court shall not set a .26 hearing if it finds either[:] (1) ‘there is a substantial probability that the child . . . may be returned to his or her parent . . . within six months . . .’; or (2) ‘reasonable services have not been provided . . .’ to the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) In other words, the court must continue the case to the 12-month review if it makes either of these findings.” (M.V., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 176 ; see also F.K., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at pp. 934–935.) “We review the juvenile court’s fin

2020(See Artal, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 275, fn. 2 .) 29 full drug and alcohol program,” this purported misconduct on the part of DCFS has no bearing on the propriety of the juvenile court’s active efforts finding.

2008In Sara M., the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of the predecessor to mle 5.710(f)(1)(B), which authorizes courts to set a .26 hearing at the six-month review if it “finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has not had contact with the child for six months.” (Cal. Rules of Court, former mle 1460(f)(1)(B); see Sara M., supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 1008-1017.) This mle is based on the text of section 366.21, subdivision (e): “If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of

2008In Sara M., the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of the predecessor to mle 5.710(f)(1)(B), which authorizes courts to set a .26 hearing at the six-month review if it “finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has not had contact with the child for six months.” (Cal. Rules of Court, former mle 1460(f)(1)(B); see Sara M., supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 1008-1017.) This mle is based on the text of section 366.21, subdivision (e): “If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of