Opinion
F080670
08-11-2020
In re ESTRELLA P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. P.P. et al., Defendants and Respondents; ESTRELLA P., Appellant.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Derek Walzberg, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. MJP013610-R1)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Derek Walzberg, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
Welfare and Institutions Code section 391 authorizes the juvenile court to terminate jurisdiction over a nonminor dependent (NMD) in foster care who is between the ages of 18 and 21 and fails to satisfy any of three eligibility requirements. (§ 391, subds. (e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(B) & (f).) Appellant, 20-year-old Estrella P., was a NMD of the court until it terminated dependency jurisdiction over her in January 2020 and dismissed her dependency on the ground that she was not participating in a reasonable and appropriate transitional independent living case plan (TILCP), one of the grounds for terminating jurisdiction. We reverse, concluding the court abused its discretion.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Dependency Proceedings while Estrella was a Minor
Dependency proceedings were initiated in January 2000 when Claudia, Estrella's then 18-year-old mother, asked the Madera County Department of Social Services (department) to take then four-month-old Estrella into protective custody and place her in foster care. Claudia was receiving family reunification services for Estrella's then four-year-old half-sister, G.P., who claimed Claudia physically and emotionally abused her during unsupervised visitation.
The juvenile court adjudged Estrella a dependent child under section 300, subdivision (j) and ordered Claudia to participate in reunification services. The whereabouts of Estrella's alleged father were unknown. By February 2001, G.P. and Estrella had been returned to Claudia's custody and the juvenile court dismissed its dependency jurisdiction. Claudia had also given birth to a son, Manuel.
His whereabouts remained unknown throughout the proceedings.
In September 2006, the department took then 10-year-old G.P., seven-year-old Estrella, five-year-old Manuel and 13-month-old Marco into protective custody because Claudia was using methamphetamine and not providing the children medical and dental care or adequate food, clothing or shelter. The children were placed in foster care. The juvenile court removed them from Claudia's custody and ordered her to participate in reunification services. In October 2007, the court returned the children to Claudia's custody with family maintenance services.
In July 2008, Claudia was killed in an automobile accident. The children were again taken into protective custody and placed in foster care. Claudia also had an infant son who was not a dependent child and remained in his father's care.
In October 2008, the juvenile court placed the children under legal guardianship with their maternal aunt (the aunt). However, she was soon overwhelmed trying to meet their emotional and financial needs. They were grieving the death of their mother, particularly Estrella who told her therapist she wanted to die and be with her mother. She had formulated two plans to commit suicide and told the social worker she wanted to go to foster care or die.
In March 2009, the department removed G.P., Estrella and Manuel from the aunt but left Marco in her care. Estrella and Manuel were placed together in one foster home and G.P. was placed in another. In May 2009, the court ordered reunification services for the aunt but terminated them in October 2009 and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In November 2010, the juvenile court appointed Estrella and Manuel's foster parents their legal guardians. The children were very well adjusted to their foster family and were doing well in school. Marco remained with the aunt and G.P. was on runaway status.
In September 2013, Estrella's guardian filed a petition under section 388 to terminate the guardianship. The guardian alleged Estrella was unhappy in her placement and not obeying the rules of the home. She was suspended for fighting at school. She had an older boyfriend and was running away from home.
The juvenile court granted the guardian's petition, reinstated its dependency jurisdiction, terminated the guardianship and ordered that Estrella be placed in foster care. Estrella ran away from foster care several times in 2014. By November 2014, she had returned to the custody of the department and was doing well in a new foster care placement. She told a social worker she lived with her 16-year-old boyfriend and his family during her absence. She worked in the fields to earn some money but wanted to go back to school and no longer be on " 'runaway' " status. She was frustrated and angry, however, that her siblings did not want to visit her. She was encouraged to address the issue in therapy but refused.
In May 2015, the department reported that Estrella, then 15, was nine weeks pregnant. She was in ninth grade, working at grade level and making progress, though she was struggling in some of her subjects. She was scheduled for weekly therapy sessions with a mental health provider. She was resistant to assistance from adults.
Estrella gave birth to a son in August 2015. She had completed ninth grade and transitioned to an adult learning school for 10th grade. She was having some adjustment problems balancing school and motherhood but was making progress.
Estrella continued to pursue her education and improve academically. In March 2016, she was tested and qualified for an individualized education plan (IEP). She was attending school and balancing the challenges of motherhood, while learning to be financially responsible. However, she no longer wanted to engage in treatment services. She had a transitional independent living plan (TILP) that was updated every six months. The TILP addressed academic attendance and completion of assigned independent study work. She was successful in attending school and completing school assignments, which was an overall improvement in her academic performance. She was working on communicating her thoughts and feelings with her social worker. She had some difficult visits with G.P. and communicated with Manuel on social media but did not have any in-person contact with him or Marco. The department believed Estrella still needed the protection of the juvenile court because she sometimes displayed poor judgment and could be outspoken and unwilling to listen to reason.
Later in 2016, the department reported Estrella was making remarkable academic progress but was struggling with appropriate communication skills. She continued to make academic progress into 2017 and was pregnant. She was having weekend visits with her aunt and was able to visit other family members while there. In April 2017, Estrella was found eligible to remain in extended foster care as a NMD.
Dependency Proceedings while Estrella was a Nonminor Dependent
Estrella developed a TILP in August 2017 with the assistance of a social worker. In order to remain in extended foster care, her plan required her to accomplish one of the following: work toward completing high school or an equivalent program such as a general education degree, attend a secondary education/vocational training program, be employed at least 80 hours a month, participate in an approved program to remove barriers to employment or have a medical diagnosis that prevented her from participating in any of the plan components. Estrella developed three goals for herself: graduate from high school by December 2017, obtain a driver's license and rebuild her relationship with her siblings. She was living in the foster home that she entered in March 2015 and had developed a significant bond with her care providers. She had also reestablished a relationship with G.P. and Manuel. Her children were two years and nine months of age, respectively. She was scheduled to graduate from high school in June 2018.
In February 2018, Estrella completed all the requirements to earn her diploma. She planned to attend Fresno City College in August 2018 and pursue employment and participate in individualized independent living plan services in the meantime. Her three goals for her TILP were to get a job, obtain a driver's license and find appropriate childcare for her children while she worked or attended school. The department reported that she "maintained open and honest communication with the [d]epartment and has proven to be a strong advocate for herself and her children."
In June 2018, Estrella moved into her own apartment with the assistance of the Aspiranet transitional housing program plus foster care (Aspiranet). Her apartment was fully furnished and equipped with everything to meet her basic daily living needs. Aspiranet contributed to Estrella's rent, electric bill and food. She also received infant supplements to assist with caring for her two young sons. She worked with an Aspiranet life coach to learn the necessary skills to maintain independent living. Her former foster parents maintained a parent-child relationship with Estrella and were a source of support for her and her children.
In December 2018, the department reported that Estrella had obstacles during the summer that prevented her from meeting the criteria for extended foster care. However, she completed the workforce connection program and hoped to enroll in a certified nursing assistant program. She expressed a desire to remain in the extended foster care program. The department noted that the requirement she attend college part time and pass with a grade of "C" or better would have to be modified because there were problems with childcare.
In September 2019, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate Estrella from the extended foster care program because she was not attending school, and was not employed or removing barriers to employment. In January 2019, Estrella reported she was working at a fast food restaurant but did not provide the department proof of employment. She subsequently reported she was last employed there " 'sometime in March 2019' " but was unable to remember the day. She said she " 'quit' " her job because she wanted something better. She told social worker Brenda Davis in April 2019 she wanted to return to school and learn a trade. Davis mailed her a copy of a flyer regarding a certified nursing assistant program in Madera County. At a meeting with Davis in May, Estrella claimed she did not receive the flyer. When Davis reminded her that she needed to either enroll in school or search for employment, she responded, " 'I'm still looking, I'm going to comply and I know what I have to do.' " In June, Estrella told Davis, " 'I think I'm just going to go to school.' " She did not identify any barriers to working or enrolling in school. Estrella told Davis during their meeting in July that she was enrolled at UEI, stating, " 'I'm going to pursue a career in nursing, so I can make more money for me and my kids.' " When Davis asked her how school was going in August, Estrella said she was dropped from school because she missed too many days of class to attend medical appointments. She said she enrolled in San Joaquin Valley College and gave her life coach proof of enrollment. Estrella's life coach, however, denied receiving proof of her enrollment and San Joaquin Valley College told Davis there was no student by Estrella's name enrolled in their program.
The Termination Hearing and the Juvenile Court's Ruling
On September 12, 2019, the juvenile court convened the review of Estrella's NMD status. Estrella was not present. The court granted a continuance to September 30, 2019, so her attorney could confer with her.
On September 18, 2109, Estrella's attorney informed Davis she met with Estrella in her office and Estrella wanted to remain in the extended foster care program. According to Estrella's attorney, Estrella was enrolled in UEI, taking classes to become a dental assistant. The following day, Davis went to Estrella's residence but she did not come to the door. Davis received a call from a staff member at Aspiranet stating Estrella was being terminated from their program because she did not meet with her life coach twice a month, did not have a working phone and had an outstanding electric bill. Since Estrella was being terminated from Aspiranet, Davis informed the court in an interim report that Estrella would have to reside in a home approved by the department.
Estrella appeared with her attorney at the hearing on September 30, 2019. Her attorney informed the juvenile court Estrella was enrolled in a dental program and the director for Aspiranet was willing to allow her back into housing for a 30-day trial. The court ordered Estrella's attorney and the social worker to speak with the director of Aspiranet. The court admonished Estrella to comply and continued the hearing to October 15.
On October 1, 2019, in a telephone conversation with Davis, Estrella said she was concerned about her funding. Davis told her she had to be living in an approved supervised independent living plan (SILP) to qualify for funding. Estrella was living with her boyfriend and his mother, Claudia G., but did not want to stay there. She did not believe she could use Claudia's home as a SILP because there were too many people living there and she did not believe Claudia would allow it. Davis instructed her to find an apartment and then let her know so that she could assess it for compliance.
On October 3, 2019, Davis attempted to verify Estrella's enrollment at UEI but was told she would need a release of information from Estrella to provide any information. When Davis asked Estrella for a copy of her enrollment and attendance record from her school, Estrella said she did not have " 'time for that' " and told Davis to get it from her attorney. Davis reminded Estrella it was in her interest to provide the documentation so she could remain in the extended foster care program.
In a letter dated October 7, 2019, D. De'Andra Kelly, Core Program Supervisor for Aspiranet, informed Davis that Estrella was terminated from the housing program on September 27, 2019, after having resided there for 15 months. She estimated Estrella was compliant with their program six of the months that she was there. Estrella refused to adhere to instructions and very seldom followed through on tasks she agreed to complete. She was extremely rude to the staff, which made it difficult to find a life coach willing to work with her. Estrella was notified of the move out date and the need to conduct a walk-through but she was not present. The apartment was dirty, stinky and had not been cleaned in a while. The electricity had been turned off for nonpayment. Aspiranet was unwilling to accept Estrella back into the program at that time. Once a youth was terminated for noncompliance, there was a three- to six-month waiting period before the youth would be considered for reentry. During the waiting period, the youth had to provide proof of part-time enrollment in school or part-time employment and part-time enrollment in school.
On October 15, 2019, the juvenile court set a contested NMD review hearing for October 29, 2019.
On October 25, 2019, Davis went to Claudia's home to inspect it. Although Davis had explained to Estrella that Claudia had to be present, she was not there. She was at a dentist appointment. Claudia gave Davis permission by telephone to inspect the residence. Davis noticed there was not a door to the bedroom where Estrella and her four-year-old son slept. Estrella's two-year-old son was living with his father because Estrella did not have a stable home for him. Claudia's 16-year-old son used to sleep in the bedroom Estrella was occupying and Claudia removed the door because he locked it and she wanted to monitor what he was doing. Davis explained there had to be a door to meet the inspection requirements. Davis was unable to approve Claudia's home because Claudia was not there to provide a copy of a mortgage statement or rental agreement, Estrella could not provide proof she was residing there, such as mail, and there was not a door to the bedroom she was staying in.
Estrella appeared with her attorney at the contested hearing on October 29, 2019. Social worker Donecia Wright testified Estrella stated she was taking classes from 5:30 to 9:30 p.m. but had not provided proof of her enrollment. She was living with Claudia but the home was not approved because Estrella's bedroom did not have a door. In addition, Claudia had not produced a mortgage statement or rental agreement and they were not able to verify that Estrella actually lived there. On cross-examination, Wright acknowledged receiving a letter from the registrar's office dated October 17, 2019, indicating Estrella was a full-time student at UEI and a shared living agreement signed by Estrella and Claudia. Wright would be willing to approve Estrella as a NMD if Estrella would authorize her to verify she was a full-time student and if Claudia provided a copy of her mortgage or rental agreement and placed the bedroom door back on the hinges. Estrella would also have to communicate regularly with the social workers.
Estrella testified she was a full-time student in the medical program at UEI. She enrolled on September 25, 2019. Prior to that, she was in their dental program but left at the end of July. Although her scheduled graduation date from the medical program was June 25, 2020, she was five months pregnant with her third child and due to deliver in March 2020. Since she planned to take time off after her delivery, she did not expect to graduate on time. However, she did not believe it would affect her academic standing as long as she attended her classes and maintained passing grades. She would turn 21 in September 2020. She wanted to remain in the foster care program.
Estrella acknowledged on cross-examination she was not working or attending school in September 2019 but said she was looking for work. She was also looking for a job in the months before that. She received her last check from the department in September. She planned to stay with Claudia only until she could find an apartment for herself and her children. Her boyfriend, Claudia or Claudia's daughter would take care of her children while she went to school or she would hire a babysitter. She expected to pay the babysitter out of her funds. She planned to look for a job after she delivered her baby. She had been looking for jobs but employers did not hire pregnant women.
Claudia testified she owned her home and could provide a copy of her mortgage statement. She could have someone put the door back on Estrella's bedroom. Estrella was welcome to live in her home as long as she needed.
The juvenile court continued Estrella as a NMD and set a six-month review. However, the court also set a one-month review for December 9, 2019, and gave Estrella specific instructions to sign the release of information, put up the bedroom door and make and keep the proper appointments. The court told Estrella, "If you don't step up and take care of it, I will terminate you from the program. You will lose your funding."
On November 15, 2019, Davis attempted to inspect Claudia's home. Estrella was there but Claudia was not, even though Davis reminded Estrella three days before that Claudia had to be there. Davis told Estrella to telephone her when she was ready to schedule another home inspection. As of December 10, Estrella had not requested one.
On November 21, 2019, Davis went to UEI to verify Estrella's attendance. According to the school records, her attendance was poor. On November 28, she was terminated from the program for poor attendance.
The juvenile court continued the December 9, 2019 hearing to January 7, 2020. Counsel represented that Estrella was not enrolled in school and Claudia's home had not been approved.
Meanwhile, on December 18, 2019, and twice more during the month, Davis went to Claudia's home but a young boy answered the door and said Estrella was not there. On two of those occasions, Davis saw Estrella's car parked in the yard. She also saw the curtain moving in the bedroom where Estrella slept. On January 3, 2020, Davis telephoned and texted Estrella to discuss her placement and eligibility for the extended foster care program but received a message that the phone number was no longer in service. On January 10, 2020, Davis met with Estrella's attorney, who gave her a telephone number for Estrella. Davis dialed the number but after three rings, the connection was terminated and Davis was unable to leave a message. On January 13, Davis texted the number and told Estrella that her final check from Aspiranet was in the office. Estrella immediately responded, saying she would come to the office to pick it up. However, Davis did not have in-person contact with her.
On January 13, 2020, the department filed an interim report, authored by Davis, detailing her unsuccessful attempts to contact Estrella in December 2019 and January 2020. There was no updated information on her enrollment or employment status. The department advised the juvenile court Estrella was not meeting the requirements of a NMD and she was verbally notified on January 7, 2020, of the January 14, 2020 hearing by her attorney.
The juvenile court conducted a contested hearing on Estrella's NMD review status on January 14, 2020. Estrella was not present and no explanation was given for her nonappearance. County counsel submitted the matter on the interim review report filed on January 13, 2020, and initially argued the court should terminate Estrella's NMD because she failed to comply with the program despite the department's tireless efforts to assist her. Estrella's attorney explained Estrella was unable to remain in school because she no longer had funding to pay the tuition. She argued Estrella was pregnant and due to deliver in approximately 45 days and met the medical exemption to remain a NMD. She asked the court to find it was not in Estrella's best interest to terminate her dependency status and to transfer her case to Fresno where she had been living for several years. County counsel followed and changed her position, stating:
"[COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would just add that, no, I don't believe termination is in [Estrella's] best interest. [¶] I believe, that [Estrella] sticking with the non-minor dependency program would have been in her best interest. [¶] I believe the [d]epartment has made, again, I'll state, tireless efforts to do what is in [Estrella's] best interest: [w]ork with her[,] [h]elp her complete the program[,] [h]elp approve a placement[.] [H]owever, the [department] has not been able to confirm any of the above and has not been able to approve a placement for her [and] [h]as not been able to approve any kind of compliance with the program in terms of work, school, [or assess her] for any other disability that would lead her to not be able to comply in other forms."
Estrella's attorney interjected that section 391, subdivision (d) required the department to file a report stating whether it was in the nonminor's best interest to terminate his or her nonminor status. She added, "I don't think we have such a report."
The juvenile court deemed the report filed was sufficient, stating "I find it incredible that we're here today discussing the same thing that we talked about ... in October .... [¶] ... [¶] [Estrella] was here. She knew what she needed to do. And it was pretty clear that she knew what she needed to do. And here we are having the same conversation and she's not compliant. [¶] And I'm going to follow the recommendation...."
The juvenile court terminated Estrella's status as a NMD, stating she could file a request to reenter the program in Fresno.
DISCUSSION
1. Overview of Nonminor Dependency Jurisdiction
"Dependency jurisdiction does not automatically terminate at age 18 [citation], and the decision to retain or terminate jurisdiction generally remains within the sound discretion of the juvenile court [citation]. Since 1976, the juvenile dependency scheme has specifically provided that '[t]he court may retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a ward or a dependent child of the juvenile court until the ward or dependent child attains the age of 21 years.' " (In re Shannon M. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 282, 292 (Shannon M.), quoting § 303, subd. (a).) But "until recently[,] the utility of doing so was limited by insufficient funds to assist nonminor dependents." (Shannon M., at p. 285.) On January 1, 2012, a new statutory scheme—the California Fostering Connections to Success Act (the Act)—became operative. The Act takes advantage of increased federal funding for extended foster care for certain nonminor dependents. (Ibid.)
A NMD is defined as "a foster child ... who is a current dependent child or ward of the juvenile court ... who satisfies all of the following criteria: [¶] (1) The [NMD] has attained 18 years of age while under an order of foster care placement by the juvenile court, and is not more than 19 years of age on or after January 1, 2012 .... [¶] (2) The [NMD] is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of the county welfare department .... [¶] (3) The [NMD] has a transitional independent living case plan [TILCP] ... as described in Section 11403." (§ 11400, subd. (v).)
NMDs who satisfy at least one of five educational and vocational conditions listed in section 11403, subdivision (b), are considered to be participating in a TILCP, and are eligible to receive financial support until age 21. The five criteria are: (1) The NMD is completing secondary education or a program leading to an equivalent credential; (2) The NMD is enrolled in an institution that provides postsecondary or vocational education; (3) The NMD is participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove barriers to employment; (4) The NMD is employed for at least 80 hours; or (5) The NMD is incapable of doing any of the above activities due to a medical condition, and that incapacity is supported by regularly updated information in the case plan of the NMD. (§ 11403, subd. (b)(1)-(5).) 2. Terminating Dependency Jurisdiction Over a NMD
The juvenile court is required to review the status of a NMD at least every six months. (§ 366.3, subd. (d).) "With respect to a [NMD], ... who has a permanent plan of long-term foster care ..., the court may continue jurisdiction of the nonminor as a [NMD] of the juvenile court or may dismiss dependency jurisdiction pursuant to Section 391." (§ 366.32, subd. (a).) The juvenile court also has discretion to retain dependency jurisdiction over nonminors even when they do not meet the statutory requirements for NMD status. (Shannon M., supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 301.) Juvenile courts have had discretion to retain dependency jurisdiction over nonminors under age 21 since 1976. (§ 303, subd. (a); Shannon M., at p. 292.) "The Legislature did not wipe out this law when it enacted the Act and provided for extended foster care aid to a special category of nonminors called nonminor dependents." (In re M.W. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 921, 933.)
Section 391 authorizes the juvenile court to terminate dependency jurisdiction over a NMD in three specific circumstances, which has been interpreted as expressing a "legislative preference for retaining jurisdiction." (In re Nadia G. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118.) Those three circumstances are: the nonminor does not wish to remain subject to dependency jurisdiction, the nonminor is not participating in a reasonable and appropriate TILCP or the minor cannot be located. (§ 391, subds. (e)(1) & (f).)
The juvenile court may not terminate jurisdiction over a nonminor unless it conducts a hearing under section 391. (§ 391, subd. (d).) "The principal question for the juvenile court under section 391 is the best interest of the child. [Citation.] Toward that end, at any hearing at which the juvenile court is considering terminating its jurisdiction, the [d]epartment 'shall' '[s]ubmit a report describing whether it is in the nonminor's best interests to remain under the court's dependency jurisdiction, which includes a recommended transitional independent living case plan' (§ 391, subd. (b)(2), italics added) and 'the facts supporting the conclusion reached.' (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.555(c)(1)(A).)" (In re Nadia, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1121.)
All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
"In deciding whether to terminate jurisdiction over a youth who has reached majority, the court, after first determining whether the department has met its obligations under section 391, must consider whether termination would give rise to an existing or reasonably foreseeable future harm to the young adult.... [I]f there is a prospect of such harm, the court must decide whether retaining jurisdiction would ultimately serve the best interests of the child. But in evaluating the youth's best interests, and in balancing the multitude of factors that should influence the exercise of its discretion, the court must take into account that the person is no longer a minor and that his or her preferences are entitled to the increased respect due those of an adult." (In re Holly H. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1336.) We review the decision to terminate jurisdiction over a NMD for abuse of discretion. (In re Aaron S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 507, 517.) 3. Analysis
The issues before the juvenile court at the January 14, 2020 hearing were whether Estrella was participating in a reasonable and appropriate TILCP, if not, whether terminating jurisdiction would give rise to an existing or reasonably foreseeable future harm to Estrella and if so, whether retaining jurisdiction would serve her best interests. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding she was not participating in her TILCP but that it abused its discretion in not considering whether terminating its jurisdiction was in her best interest.
"The Legislature intended that the nonminor dependent and the county welfare department 'shall work together to ensure the nonminor dependent's ongoing eligibility' for extended foster care. (§ 11403, subd. (a).)" (In re M.W., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 928.) It also placed an extensive reporting requirement on the department to ensure that the NMD is provided information, documents, and assistance in obtaining employment and applying to an education program and for housing and to report such efforts to the juvenile court. (§ 391, subd. (d); see also rule 5.555(c).) If the department recommends the court terminate dependency jurisdiction, its report must address whether it is in the minor's best interest to remain under the court's jurisdiction and the facts supporting that conclusion. (§ 391, subd. (d)(2); rule 5.555(c)(1)(A).)
In ruling, the juvenile court relied on the department's interim report dated January 7, 2020, and filed the day before the hearing. Nowhere in the report does the department provide updated information about Estrella's participation in the TILCP or address the impact of terminating jurisdiction, including whether it served her best interest. The last evidence regarding Estrella's employment status was her testimony at the hearing in October 2019 that she was unemployed and having difficulty obtaining employment because she was pregnant. The last evidence presented by the department regarding her school enrollment status was contained in its interim report filed on December 11, 2019, that she was terminated from UEI on November 28. Since Estrella did not appear at the termination hearing in January 2020 and since the department did not provide updated information, the juvenile court had to infer that her status had not changed in order to find she was not participating in her plan. Given her conduct and performance in the months immediately preceding the hearing, the court could reasonably make such an inference.
As to whether Estrella's pregnancy constituted a medical exemption, her trial attorney raised the issue for the first time during argument at the termination hearing. However, there was never any indication her pregnancy prevented her from participating in her TILCP or any evidence presented that it did.
Estrella's pregnancy, however, was a factor that deserved the juvenile court's consideration in deciding whether terminating its jurisdiction at that time would cause her foreseeable harm. She had two small children in her charge and was due to deliver her third child in 45 days. Pregnant, and with little prospect of obtaining employment, her only hope of continuing her education and setting her life on a solid course was the continued support and supervision of the court. Although, arguably, it would always be detrimental for any nonminor to stop receiving services, we fail to see how it could possibly be in Estrella's best interest to terminate them.
In concluding the juvenile court erred in failing to consider Estrella's best interest, we acknowledge the department's considerable efforts in assisting her and the court's understandable frustration with her failure to consistently follow through. However, the records reflect that she attempted to comply. More importantly, if foster youth such as Estrella are to become productive members of society, due consideration to their unique circumstances must be given and all reasonable efforts must be made to further that end.
DISPOSITION
The order of January 14, 2020, terminating Estrella's dependency is reversed, and dependency is ordered reinstated back to that date and continuing forward.