13 California opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Elizabeth R.green2 sentences2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at | 6 | 8 |
In Re Michael R.green2 sentences2013Petitioner is correct that the question of ―best interest of the child‖ does not come into play at the 12-month hearing. ―As explained in In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1788 , ‗ ―[t]he focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.‖ (In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687 , 695–696.)‘ Similarly, in In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 , the court noted that ‗[a]fter the termination of reunificat 2005As explained in In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 ], “ ‘[t]he focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.’ (In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687 , 695-696 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 ].)” Similarly, in In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595 , 867 P.2d 706 ], the court noted that “[a]fter the termination of reunification services, the parents’ interest in th | 2 | 5 |
In Re Stephanie M.green2 sentences2013Petitioner is correct that the question of ―best interest of the child‖ does not come into play at the 12-month hearing. ―As explained in In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1788 , ‗ ―[t]he focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.‖ (In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687 , 695–696.)‘ Similarly, in In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 , the court noted that ‗[a]fter the termination of reunificat 2005As explained in In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 ], “ ‘[t]he focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.’ (In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687 , 695-696 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 ].)” Similarly, in In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595 , 867 P.2d 706 ], the court noted that “[a]fter the termination of reunification services, the parents’ interest in th | 2 | 3 |
David B. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at | 2 | 2 |
In Re Rebecca H.green2 sentences2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at | 2 | 2 |
San Mateo County Human Services Agency v. Kia E.green2 sentences2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 2025(Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 507–508; accord, In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [“The purpose of . . . reunification services is ‘to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody.’ ”]; David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [whether a dependent child feels “bonded” to a parent “is simply not the relevant inquiry” during reunification; “[u]ntil services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [the parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [the child] released to his [or her] custody”]; Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at | 2 | 2 |
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. D.Y. (In re D.Y.)green1 sentence2020(See Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1787 ; see id. at p. 1788 [“ ‘The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.’ ”].) Thus, the juvenile court’s denial of the continuance motion “ ‘result[ed] in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (See D.Y., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 1056 .) We acknowledge that the 31-month period in which father was attempting to reunify with D.N. is considerably longer than 39 the st | 1 | 1 |
In Re Misako R.green2 sentences2002(See, e.g., In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 ]; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 460 ].) The parents do not challenge the court’s finding they received adequate services. 2002(See, e.g., In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 ]; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 460 ].) The parents do not challenge the court’s finding they received adequate services. | 1 | 1 |
Mervin v. Gustave G.green2 sentences2002(See, e.g., In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 ]; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 460 ].) The parents do not challenge the court’s finding they received adequate services. 2002(See, e.g., In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 ]; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 460 ].) The parents do not challenge the court’s finding they received adequate services. | 1 | 1 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Doris F.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
In Re Brian R.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
In Re Joseph B.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
Alameda Cty. Soc. Serv. Agency v. Catherine R.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
Jacqueline H. v. Maretta M.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
Department of Social Services v. Ronald P.red2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
In Re Jasmon O.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
James R. v. Cindy R.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
In Re Laura F.green2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Lee P.
green
2 sentences1992(See §§ 355.1, 366.21, subd. (f), 366.22, subd. (a).) The focus during *696 the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal. App.4th 913 , 923, review granted Apr. 23, 1992 (S025807)) whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes. ( In re Heather P., supra, 209 Cal. App.3d 886, 892 .) The prepermanency planning statutes DSS cites are exceptions which arise by some act or omission by the parent. 1992(In re Heather P., supra, 209 Cal.App.3d 886, 892 .) The prepermanency planning statutes DSS cites are exceptions which arise by some act or omission by the parent. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
In Re Gsr
green
1 sentence2020(See G.S.R., supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1206–1208 [father began receiving reunification services in March 2005, and the juvenile court terminated those services in March 2006]; S.S., supra, __ Cal.App.5th at pp. __ [2020 Cal.App.Lexis 926, at pp. *1–3] [the juvenile court ordered DCFS to provide father with reunification services at a jurisdiction and disposition hearing held in July 2018, but terminated those services in February 2019].) Our holding is based on the unique circumstances of this family at the time the court denied continuing the permanency review hearing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
RITA L. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2013Rather, at this point ―the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability‖ [citation], and in fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that 24 continued foster care is in the best interests of the child. [Citation.]‘ ‖ (Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 495, 507 .) In Rita L. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 498 , the juvenile court ―reluctantly‖ terminated reunification services for a mother who had performed ―so outstandingly‖ during the reunification period because of a ―last-minute stumble‖ in the mother‘s effort to remain drug free and bec 2013Rather, at this point ―the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability‖ [citation], and in fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that 24 continued foster care is in the best interests of the child. [Citation.]‘ ‖ (Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 495, 507 .) In Rita L. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 498 , the juvenile court ―reluctantly‖ terminated reunification services for a mother who had performed ―so outstandingly‖ during the reunification period because of a ―last-minute stumble‖ in the mother‘s effort to remain drug free and bec | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re John
green
2 sentences1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with 1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Brequia Y.
green
1 sentence1998At this hearing, the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children. (... § 366.22.) `The focus during the prepermanent planning stages is preserving the family whenever possible [citation] whereas the focus after the permanent planning hearing is to provide the dependent children with stable, permanent homes.' ( In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 687, 695-696 ....)" ( In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1774, 1788 [ 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 200 ].) Compliance with | 1 | 1998–1998 |