In re Dennis A

Filed 5/23/06  In re Dennis A. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County.  Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.

            Janet G. Sherwood, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, Carrie Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            After finding cuts and bruises on Dennis A.'s face and burns on both his legs, Stanislaus County Child Protective Services removed him and his sister T. from the custody of their mother, Amber A.  Amber appeals from the juvenile court's 12-month review order declining to return the children to her.  She claims the evidence was insufficient to support the court's conclusion that returning the children would create a substantial risk of detriment to them and argues that the court failed to state the factual basis for that finding.  She also challenges the court's finding that reasonable reunification services were provided to her. 

            We hold that sufficient evidence supported the finding of a substantial risk of detriment and that the court adequately stated reasons for the finding.  We agree with Amber, however, that the evidence did not support a finding that reasonable reunification services were provided.  Respondent Stanislaus County Community Services Agency learned six months before the 12-month review that Amber had diminished intellectual functioning and might be mildly mentally retarded or on the borderline of mental retardation, but did not modify her reunification plan to take this information into account.  At the hearing, the agency's counsel admitted that, in light of this, the mother's failure to make adequate progress toward the reunification plan's goals was â€