Joel T., a minor

MODIFICATION

JUVENILES


Reunification services after removal of minors are necessary after parent received family maintenance services for 18 months before minors' removal. In re JOEL T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EPIFANIA B., Defendant and Appellant. No. C029825 (Super.Ct.Nos. JD207911, JD207912, JD207913, JD207914 and JD207915) California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (Sacramento) Filed March 19, 1999 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
        It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 23, 1999, be modified in the following particulars.

        1. On page 5,1 within the discussion of part I, immediately following the first full paragraph ending "and is entitled to no more." add the following paragraph:
        When the minors were removed from, then returned to, appellant's custody in 1996, the juvenile court employed the nonstatutory procedure disapproved of in In re Damonte A. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 894 by temporarily placing the minors in appellant's custody while finding that such return would be detrimental to the minors. (Id. at pp. 897-899.) As we observed in In re Damonte A., such a placement is the functional equivalent of an in-home dependency in which the court orders the parents to participate in child welfare services. (Id. at p. 900; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1456.) The court here did order appellant to participate in various services designed to ameliorate the conditions which resulted in the dependency and avoid or limit out-of-home placement.

        2. On page 6,2 line 9, following the parenthetical cite ending "1461(b)(A), 1462(a)(2)(A))." add the following footnote:
        It is true that family maintenance services may be limited to a total of 12 months. (§§ 16501, subd. (g), 16506.) However, family preservation services are not so limited. (§ 16501, subd. (j).) As DHHS provided services to the family well past 12 months, we presume the services in this case were family preservation services.
        The petition for rehearing is denied.
        There is no change in the judgment.

FOR THE COURT:
        HULL, J.
        SCOTLAND, P.J.
        MORRISON, J.


1        See Daily Appellate Report of February 26, 1999, page 1809, column 2, paragraph 2, line 9.

2        See Daily Appellate Report of February 26, 1999, page 1809, column 2, paragraph 3, line 17.