California: Court of Appeal Finds Agency Did Not Make Good Faith Effort...BY: DIANN Z.

Link for the opinion - http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D062170.PDF Title – California: Court of Appeal Finds Agency Did Not Make Good Faith Effort, Awards Additional Services to Father In the case of Christopher D. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty., 210 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal.Ct.App. 2012), the California Court of Appeal determined that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency had failed to provide reasonable child visitation services to the father while he was a patient in a residential drug rehabilitation center. San Diego County filed for termination of the father’s reunification services and paternal rights due to non-completion of drug rehabilitation and additional drug charges. The father filed a petition to stop the termination of services and paternal rights. After an arrest for drug charges, the father was granted child visitation with his minor daughter during his incarceration and subsequent residential drug treatment. The father left the rehabilitation facility two days prior to completion, used drugs, was re-arrested and re-incarcerated. At a review hearing upon the father’s release, the father contested that he did not receive reasonable child visitation services during his in-patient drug rehabilitation, and asked for additional reunification services. Family reunification services include treatment and counseling plans for parents to facilitate their return to the family unit. Child visitation services are an important factor during treatment and rehabilitation. Visitation helps maintain the family bonds which will facilitate a successful parent-child reunification. The California Court of Appeal was faced with deciding if the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency had delivered reasonable child visitation services to the father during his in-patient rehabilitation stay. According to California’s Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.5, it is wrong to deny child visitation to a parent receiving reunification services unless there is sufficient evidence that indicates such visitation would be detrimental to the child. Upon extensive review of the circumstances, the Court of Appeal held that the limited child visitation the father received during his rehabilitation was extremely adverse to him. The court cited the reunification plans which stated the father was to have weekly supervised visits – he had two occurrences during his 12 week stay despite repeatedly asking his social worker for additional visits. The court found that the social worker’s excuses of having too full a caseload and of the father’s facility being too far away did not provide a good faith effort to fulfill the visitation provisions of the reunification plan. The court subsequently reinstated the father’s reunification services, including child visitation during future drug rehabilitation. The court also cancelled the county’s petition for termination of paternal rights against the father.