California
Appeals
Scope of Review
Standard of Review
 

Standard of Review-abuse of discretion substantial evidence
In re Adrianna P

 We review an order granting reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) for abuse of discretion.  (Cf. Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96, fn. 6.)  The scope of the court's discretion resides in the legal principles governing the subject of the action.  (City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297.)  "Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an 'abuse' of discretion."  (Ibid.; Nickolas F. v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 92, 119.)  . . .

Consistent with the Legislative preference favoring reunification services, section 361.5, subdivision (b) provides the court need not provide reunification services when any of the circumstances described in section 361.5, subdivision (b) apply, including subdivision (b)(10).[12] (§ 361.5, subd. (b).)  To properly exercise its discretion to order reunification services when a provision such as subdivision (b)(10) applies, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that reunification is in the best interest of the child.  (§ 361.5, subd. (c); see In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 218, fn. 5; Renee J. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1464 ["Section 361.5 authorizes, but does not require, the court to deny services in the specified circumstances"].) 

            We review an order granting reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (c) for abuse of discretion.  (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 96, fn. 6.)  Under this standard of review, we examine the whole record in a light most favorable to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court, defer to the lower court on issues of credibility, resolve all conflicts in support of the determination and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold the court's order.  (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733-734; In re Albert T., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 216.) 

            For purposes of our discussion, we assume without deciding that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) applied to M.G., Maurice, Jr., and Q.G., and therefore the court must also consider section 361.5, subdivision (c).  We conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding that reunification with Maurice was in his children's best interests.  (§ 361.5, subd. (c); see In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228 [the judgment will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence].)
In re Adrianna P. 8/20/08 CA4/1

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents