California has a comprehensive statutory scheme establishing procedures for the juvenile court to follow when and after a child is removed from the home for the child’s welfare. The objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time. When the child is removed from the home the court first attempts, for a specified period of time, to reunify the family. Under the current statutory scheme dependency proceedings in which a child is removed from his or her home typically involves four phases: jurisdiction, disposition, reunification and implementation of a permanent plan if reunification is unsuccessful.

*partially excerpted from Bridget A. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285

The adjudication of a juvenile dependency petition is called the jurisdictional hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether grounds exist to determine that a child falls within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The following are the main grounds for finding a child falls within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court:

• Serious Physical Harm by Parent or Guardian [Section 300(a)]
• Failure to Adequately Supervise, Protect, or Provide for Child [Section 300(b)]
• Serious Emotional Damage [Section 300(c)]
• Sexual Abuse [Section 300(d)]
• Severe Physical Abuse of Young Child [Section 300(e)]
• Causing the Death of Another Child by Neglect or Abuse [Section 300(f)]
• Child Left Without Provision for Support or Voluntarily Surrendered [Section 300(g)]
• Acts of Cruelty {Section 300(i)]
• Abuse or Neglect of Sibling [Section 300(j)]
  

DISPOSITION

After the juvenile court has assumed jurisdiction by finding a child is a person described by Section 300 of the Welfare & Institutions Code, the court is required to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the child. In most cases at the disposition hearing the court determines what services the child and the family need to be reunited and free of court supervision. The court may enter an order ranging from dismissal of the petition to declaring dependency, removing physical custody from the parents and making a general placement order for the child. If appropriate, the court may declare the child a dependent, and without removing the child from his or her home, order family maintenance services to ameliorate the conditions that made the child subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Alternatively, if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being of the child if the child remains in his or her home and there is no other reasonable means to protect the child, in the absence of a noncustodial parent who desires custody, the child must be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents and placed under the supervision of the county social worker who may place the child in an appropriate home.

Whether or not the dependent child remains in the parent’s home, however, child welfare services (either in the form of family reunification services for a child in an out-of-home placement or family maintenance services for a child who remains at home) must be provided to the parent unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one of the 15 exceptions apply.

Family maintenance services are activities designed to provide in-home protective services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or exploitation, for the purposes of preventing separation of children from their families.

Family reunification services are activities designed to provide time-limited foster care services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse, or exploitation, when the child cannot safely remain at home, and needs temporary foster care, while services are provided to reunite the family.

SECTION 364 REVIEW HEARING:

If a child is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent, the court must schedule a review hearing to be held within six months of the date of the declaration of dependency and every six months thereafter.

At the hearing the issue before the court is whether continued supervision is necessary. Termination of dependency jurisdiction is required unless the Department of Children and Family Services establishes the conditions still exist that would justify the court taking jurisdiction of the child or such conditions would exist if jurisdiction were terminated. If dependency jurisdiction is continued, the court must order continued services and set a further review hearing to be held within six months. This review process is repeated until the court terminates jurisdiction.

THE 6-MONTH HEARING

If a child has been declared a dependent of the juvenile court and placed under court supervision, the status of the child must be reviewed every six months. The initial task for the court at the six-month review hearing is to determine whether the child should be returned to the custody of his or her parent or guardian. There is a statutory presumption the child will be returned to parental custody unless the court finds the child’s return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. In making this determination, the court is to “consider the efforts or progress demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided. The parent’s failure to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs is prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.

At this hearing the court must also determine whether reasonable reunification services have been offered or provided and evaluate the child’s case plan and plan for permanent placement. If the child is not returned home, the court continues or modifies the reunification services being provided and schedules the 12-month permanency hearing. The court can terminate reunification services for parents if a child is under three years of age at the time of the filing of a petition and the parents have not complied with the reunification plan.

THE 12-MONTH HEARING

At the permanency review hearing, to be held within 12 months from the date the child enters foster care, the court again determines whether the child should be returned to the custody of his or her parent or guardian; and the same statutory presumption that the child will be returned home applies. If the child is not returned to his or her parent because the juvenile court finds a substantial risk of detriment to the child exists, the court must terminate reunification services and facilitate the alternative permanent plan (generally by setting a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan) unless reasonable services have not been offered or provided or there is a substantial probability of return of the child within 18 months from the date of the child’s removal from his or her home.

If the court finds there is a substantial probability the child could be safely returned to the custody of his or her parent with additional reunification services, the court may extend the reunification period to a maximum 18 months from the date of the original removal.

THE 18-MONTH HEARING

At the 18-month permanency review hearing the juvenile court either orders the return of a dependent child to parental custody or terminates reunification services and sets a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the 18-month review hearing constitutes a critical juncture at which 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.

As was true at the 6-month and 12-month review hearings, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child to the physical custody of his or her parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being, the court must order the child returned. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing, the court shall order that hearing be held to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian.

SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION HEARING (366.26)

At the selection and implementation hearing the court will make a determination as to what the best permanent plan for the child should be. The court must consider adoption, guardianship or long term foster care, in that order. While adoption is the preferred option, there are many factors taken into consideration when arriving at the best permanent plan for a child.

In order to be granted de facto parent status a person must establish that he or she has assumed the role of a parent and cared for the child, developing a substantial interest in the companionship, care, and management of the child.  If de facto parent status is granted, the de facto parent has the right to participate in the proceedings to assert and protect his or her own interest in the child.  Some of the factors considered and assessed by a court:  The  “psychological bond” between the child and the adult; the adults role as a parent on a day-to-day basis for a substantial period of time; the information the adult possesses about the child, unique from the other participants in the process; the adult’s attendance at juvenile court hearings; and the impact on the relationship should an order result in the permanent foreclosure of future contact with the adult.

Petitions for modification of orders are brought pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code §388.  A “388” petition can be filed by any interested person seeking to modify a previous order of the juvenile court based upon new evidence or a change of circumstances which require a change in the court’s order so as to serve the best interests of the child.  This petition can also be brought relative to issues with regard to the sibling relationship.