California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
In re I.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
B.A. et al., Defendants and Respondents I.A. et al., Appellants.
from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Nos.
J277594 & J277595, Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Reversed and
remanded with directions.
Melissa A. Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
Valerie Ross for Defendant and Respondent B.A.
Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent D.V.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
(Mother) and D.V. (Father) are the parents of six-year-old
I.A.-V. (I.) and eight-year-old Is.A.-V. (Is.). Mother and
Father have a history with child protective services due to
ongoing domestic violence and neglect issues, resulting in
the removal of their children from their care. This is I. and
Is.’s third dependency.
Is. were first removed from Mother in 2015. At the close of
the first dependency, Mother’s reunification services
were terminated, and Father received legal and physical
custody of I. and Is. In 2017, I. and Is. were removed from
Father’s custody and placed with Mother as a previously
noncustodial parent. The second dependency resulted in Mother
receiving legal and physical custody of the children and
termination of Father’s reunification services.
third and current dependency commenced in 2018 after I., Is.,
and A.A. were removed from Mother’s care for the same
reasons as previously. At the dispositional hearing, the San
Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS)
recommended to bypass reunification services pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision
(b)(10) (hereafter 361.5(b)(10)), as to all three children.
The juvenile court agreed to bypass Mother’s services
as to A.A. However, the court interpreted I. and Is. to be
“the same child” under the statute and granted
Mother reunification services as to I. and Is. Counsel for I.
and Is. subsequently appealed.
appeal, minors’ counsel argues that the juvenile court
erred in ordering reunification services for the parents in
I. and Is.’s case after it found the bypass provision
under section 361.5(b)(10) did not apply. County counsel
agrees and urges this court to remand the matter with
directions the juvenile court reassess the application of
section 361.5(b)(10) with the understanding that I. and Is.
are “siblings” rather than “the same
child” within the meaning of this bypass provision. For
the reasons explained, we find that the bypass provision
under section 361.5(b)(10) applies to the “same
child” or “same children.” Accordingly, we
reverse the juvenile court’s finding that section
361.5(b)(10) did not apply to this case, and remand the
matter to the juvenile court with directions to enter an
order denying further reunification services to the parents
in I. and Is.’s case.