WPC % t1wAcc;;$!!@ [w~o[.ˊӤ0٣[R3_3V{eMy>;\VHS,H^u**=uГ1q@/(&& RH0$[wB.nvkJ7 oߪZIOv/ kui7fMXtp~fw";忧=n0p!i frG/ϝVM|t#G");@vJ~V2+lT+]]]#m1s!ML}D!kG:&Īk%rٚ[1օODӜ-'Q4t jd7@ &l7V!}AKjrST (ωQ& DϩY@IM"}TO2Y]`n#f8

 0Y 0< 0B) 0k 0{ 0< 0 U, 0p 0P9 0= 0RX 0 0 0:;u 0  B 0C O!U0U0 0L^ 0 #!U NK$ %$M$($N$w$4$$^ $ m$ $New York' IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jan 0brad wright.aob   6n a4Heading 1XXXE $New YorkE   E $New YorkEXXX6 4Heading 2   6 4Heading 3   <:Default Para<:Endnote Refe0%L .Footer !>4X` hp x ><&:Footnote Ref  XXX< :Footnote Tex8OS 6Plain TextA  $MonacoAE $New YorkE $Monaco< :Body Text 21 X  X :  8Body Text 2    8MJ 6Block Text , , 5+4 44` hp x 5   2( ` hp x 2<  :Body Text In    <ZZ :Normal Inden d   2( ` hp x2   2( ` hp x 2 d0%L .Header !>4X` hp x >:8Page Number  &)..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81  ! !X!    Q  1  ڈ!!!!  Q-(2&$  !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81   d($       !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81  _       XXT0    1    XT0X  22ԀAllsectionreferenceshereinafteraretotheWelfare 2 andInstitutionsCodeunlessotherwiseindicated. ݌  Ќ           !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81  _       XXT0    2    XT0X  22ԀTherearetwoClerk'sTranscriptsinthiscase,onefor 2 eachchild.Thetwotranscriptsaresubstantiallythe  same.ReferencestotheClerk'sTranscriptare  referencestotheClerk'sTranscriptinDenny'scase  (SuperiorCourtNo.507200)unlessotherwiseindicated. ݌ n Ќ      n  r $New York   !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81  _       XXT0    3    XT0X  22ԀAtthispointinthecase,theagencyapparentlyassumed 2 thatAmberwastheperpetratorandthatthechild's  injurieshadbeeninflictedinanger.Thislaterproved  nottobethecasebuttheagencydidnotamendthe  reunificationplantodeletethisrequirement.Alice n completedtheangermanagementprogram.(CT252.)p $New York   !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81         XXT0    4    XT0X  22ԀItappearsthatthereportwasservedoncounselasan 2 attachmenttothe12monthreviewreportthatwasfiled  withthecourtonMarch29,2005.(CT243.)( 2.$  !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81  T0XXXT0  0  #|x($..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL6,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman Regular"X{F4PagesH4 U  !..      "X81XX"XXT0XX"X81  _      XX   MEMORANDUMTOPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0    &    INTRODUCTION  Ԍ v Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0     ` Thispetitionchallengesanumberofseriouserrors Y thatoccurredatthetwelvemonthreviewhearing. 9 Appellant,AliceA.,isa21yearoldmotheroftwoyoung y  children.Shehasbeendiagnosedas"mildlymentally  Y retarded."Bythetimeofthetwelvemonthreview   hearing,Alicehadcompletedbothofthecourtordered )y  reunificationservicesprograms.However,neitherofthe   serviceprovidersfeltthatAlicehadreallybenefited I  fromtheseprogramsbecausetheynotedthatsheseemedto )  haveseriouscomprehensionproblemsandwasincapableof i  completingthehomeworkassignmentscorrectly.'v  I   ` Althoughtheagencyreceivedtheresultsofacourt  orderedpsychologicalevaluationthatdisclosedAlice's i disabilitylessthantwomonthsafterthesecondsix  monthreunificationperiodbegan,theagencydidnot 9 sharetheresultsofthepsychologicalevaluationwith  Alice'scounselnordiditamendAlice'scaseplanto Y  tailorherservicestosomeonewithherlimitations.In !9 stead,itdidnothing.Atthetwelvemonthreview y# hearing,theagencyrecommendedthatAlice'schildrennot  %Y  bereturnedtoherbecauseshedidnothaveseparate &! housingeventhoughfindingseparatehousingwasnevera )(y#  requirementofherreunificationplan._ ) %  ` ThejuvenilecourtorderedthatAlice'schildrennot   bereturnedtoherbutdidnotspecifythefactsupon @ whichthatdecisionwasbasedinspiteofthestatutory   requirementthatitdoso.Further,inspiteofthefact `  thattheagencyessentiallyadmit_ted_ԀthatAlicehadnot  @ beenprovidedwithreasonable_reunifica_Ԅ_tion_Ԁservices   because"itwasnotherfault"thatshedidnotbenefit `  fromtheservicesthatwereprovided,thejuvenilecourt   foundthatreasonableserviceshadbeenprovided. 0   ` Forthereasonssetforthbelow,theseerrors   requiretheissuanceofwritorderingreversalofthe P  twelvemonthreviewordersinthiscase. 0  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0      &     INTEGRATEDSTATEMENTOFTHECASE Z  Ԍ P  Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0    &  ANDSTATEMENTOFFACTS&  wԌ 3 Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0   l<`    ` OnApril9,2004,theCowCountyDepartmentof  SocialServices("theagency")filedapetitionpursuant  toWelfareandInstitutionsCode XXT0Z  XT0X2ZXXT0Z   1       3 XT0X  2ZԀsection300,subdivision  (b)allegingthatDennyA.andTonyA.camewithinthe o jurisdictionofthejuvenilecourtbecauseDennyhad R suffered_nonaccidental_Ԁburnsonhislegsandfacial 5 injuriesthattheirmother,AliceA.,hadeithercaused  h orfailedtoprotectDennyfrom,andthatshefailedto  K obtainpromptmedicaltreatmentforthechild'sinjuries. !.  (CT XXT0""     2        XT0X  XT0XXXT02""Ԁ1,5.)'< "  ` Alicetoldinvestigatingauthoritiesthattheburns   onthechild'slegshadoccurredonApril1,2004while  Dennywasinthecareofthehisbabysitter,SaraC.(CT v 10.)ThebabysittertoldAlicethatshehadleftDenny Y sittingonthekitchencounternexttoahotstove.(CT < 10.)Alicealsosaidthatthebabysittercalledherat  o workonApril1,2004,totellherthatDennyhada  R gottenablackeyefrombeinghitinthefacewitha  5 tetherball.(CT10.)Thatevening,Alicediscovereda   cutonDenny'snosewhenshewentintotheroomatthe    babysitter'shousewherethechildhadbeenputtobed.    Shethoughtthathehadhithisfaceonabedframenext q  towherehewassleeping.(CT1011,49.)Shecalledher T  parentswhocameoverandtreatedthecut.(CT87.)The 7  babysitterdeniedcausinganyofthechild'sinjuries. j  (CT10,49.) M   ` Aliceadmittedthatabouttwoweekspreviously, 0 Dennyhadreturnedfromthebabysitterwithscratcheson  hisface.ThebabysittertoldherthatTonyhad  scratchedDenny.Alicedidnotbelievethatthiswasthe  caseandreportedtheincidenttothesheriff's l department.Nevertheless,shecontinuedtouseSaraC. O tocareforthechildrenwhilesheworkedbecauseshehad 2 nooneelsetowatchherchildren.(CT49,88.) e  ` AlicetookthechildtothedoctoronApril5,2004, H fortreatmentofacoldbutfailedtomentiontheburns + onthechild'slegs.(CT49,50.).Thedoctor'soffice  calledChildProtectiveServices.Boththeagencyand  thepoliceinvestigated.(CT53,7989.)Theagency  detainedthechildrenonApril7,2004andfiledthe g section300petition.(CT1,2.)Thepoliceeventually J decidednottopursueaprosecutionbecauseAlicepassed - } apolygraphexam_ination_Ԁthatestablishedthatshedid !`  notknowhowDennyhadincurredhisinjuries.(CT217;RT !C! 910.)  "&"  ` AlicewasseparatedfromDennyL.,whoisher # # husbandandthechildren'sfather.(CT50,55.)Alice $$ lefthimandmovedbackinwithherparentsbecausehe % % wasnotsupportingherandthechildren,wasneverhome, b&!& andneverspenttimewiththechildren.(CT55.)Forthe E'"' fivemonthspriortotheinitiationofthedependency ((x#( proceedings,Alicewaslivingwitharoommateandtrying  )[$) tomakeitonherown.(CT55.)Afterthepetitionwas )>%* filed,Alicehadtomovebackinwithherparentsbecause *!&+ shewasfiredfromherjobandlosther_TANF_Ԁfunding.(CT +', 55.)DennyL.appearedatthedetentionhearing(CT25) ,'- butfailedtoappearatthejurisdictionhearing.(CT  150.)Hedidnotparticipateinhiscaseplan(CT180).  anddidnotparticipatefurtherinanyoftheproceedings v inthecase.(CT226.) Y  ` Alicesubmittedonthepetitionafteritwasamended < atacombinedjurisdiction/dispositionhearingheldon  o May25,2004.(CT5,165.)Thecourtorderedthatthe  R childrenberemovedfromAlice'scustodyandthat  5 reunificationservicesbeprovidedtoher.(CT166.)The   reunificationplancalledforAlicetoattendaparenting    classandanangermanagementclass. XXT0\    _   3      _ &XT0X  XT0XXXT02 \ Ԁ(CT6364.)Atthat    point,Alicehadalreadyattendedfiveparentingclasses q  andtwoangermanagementclassesandwasvisiting T  regularly.(RT12;CT58.) 7   ` Thechildren'scounselexpressedsomeconcernat j  thishearingthattheparentingclassmightnotbeenough M  tohelpAlice.(RT10.)Ms.Costa,thesocialworker, 0 suggestedthatthereshouldbeassessmentafterAlice  completedtheparentingclassandthatiftheassessment  indicatedthatsheneededadditionalhelp,shecouldbe  referredtotheParentsResourceCenter.(RT11.)The l children'scounselindicatedthattheproposalforthe O assessmentandanadditionalreferralwouldsatisfyher 2 concernsandthecourtapprovedofthatplan.(RT11.) e  ` Alicecontinuedtolivewithherparentsuntil H September8,2004whenshemovedinwithhermaternal + grandmother.(CT211,214.)Herchildrenwereinitially  placedwithLoriL.,thepaternalgrandmother.(CT209,  217.)Alice'smother,VictoriaA.,providedchildcare  whileLoriL.wasatwork.ThechildrenwerewithAlice g atVictoria'shouseeverydayfrom6:30a.m.to7:00 J p.m.,exceptforthetwodaysaweekthatAliceattended - } herclasses.(CT213.)Aliceappliedforanumberof !`  jobsatvariousplacesbutwasturneddown.Alice !C! believedthatpartoftheproblemwasthatshe"hassome "&" spellingproblems"(CT212.)Shewantedhersocial # # worker,Mr.Nada,tohelpherwithsomejobtraining.(CT $$ 212.)OnSeptember28,2004,afterAlicehadmovedout % % ofthehouse,theagencydecidedtoplacethechildren b&!& _withVictoriabecauseLoriL.wasoverwhelmedandhad  difficultydealingwithDenny.(CT216,217.)   ` Inhisreportforthesixmonthreviewhearing v (361.21,subd.(e)),heldonOctober19,2004,Mr.Nada Y reportedthatAlicehadattendedtheangermanagement < programregularlybuthaddifficultycomprehendingthe  o material.(CT179.)Theprogressreportfromtheprogram  R counselor,Mr.Winner,indicatedthatAlicehadcompleted  5 13outof16sessionsbutthatshehadnotbenefitedfrom   theseclasses,"mainlybecauseshehaslowcomprehension    ofandintheuseoftheEnglishlanguage;concreteor    abstractreasoningisseeminglybeyondhercapabilities; q  i.e,shehasnevercompletedanyhomeworkassignment, T  andcannot[sic]conceptualizeordiscussthecontextof 7  whattheassignmentswerepurportedtoachieveorwhat j  shehaslearnedfromthehomeworkassignment."(CT193.) M  Mr.Winnerrecommendedthatapsychologicalevaluationbe 0 donetoascertainAlice'slevelorcapabilitytofunction  asanindependentpersonand,ifsheiscapable,to  recommendwhatlevelorkindofvocationaltrainingwould  helpherbecomeaselfsustainingperson.(CT194.) l  ` Theprogressreportfromthecounseloratthe O parentingclassindicatedthatAlicehadmissedsome 2 appointmentsbuthadcompletedeightoutoftenparenting e classes.Shehadnotyetcompletedsix"packets"and H stillneededtodotheparentchildlabs.(CT191.) +  ` InthecontextofreportingAlice'sdifficultiesin  comprehendingthatmaterial,thesocialworkerreported  thatAlicewasassessedbytheLoneMountainRegional  Center(LMRC)forapossibledevelopmentaldelaybutwas g determinednottoqualifyfortheregionalcenter's J services.(CT181,231233.)Theregionalcenter - } recommendedthatMr.NadareferAlicetotheDisablity !`  ServicesDepartmentatCowCountyJuniorCollegefor !C! classestoimproveherreadingandwritingskills.Mr. "&" Nadatoldtheregionalcenterthathehadalreadythought # # ofthisandwouldbelookingintothisprogramforAlice. $$ (CT233.)ThereisnoevidenceintherecordthatMr. % % NadaeverreferredAlicetothisprogram. b&!&  ` OnOctober21,2004,Mr.Winnernotifiedthesocial E'"' workerthatAlicehadcompletedtheangermanagement ((x#( program.(CT235.)Heindicatedthatherlasttwo  )[$) sessionswereuneventfulandthathisrecommendations )>%* concerningAlicehadnotchanged.(CT235.)OnOctober *!&+ 26,2004,theparentingclasscounselorreportedthat +', Alicehadonlyonemoreclasstoattendandthreepackets ,'- andparent/childlabstocompletebeforeshewasdone  withherparentingclasses.(CT236.)   ` Thesocialworkerrecommendedthattheagency v continuetoprovideservicestoAlice.Thecaseplan Y attachedtothereportcontinuedtorequireAliceto < completetheangermanagementandparentingclasses(CT  o 185,186.)AlthoughtheCASAhadrecommendedthatAlice  R beprovidedwithaBasicLifeSkillsclassandvocational  5 trainingandtheregionalcenterrecommendedthatshebe   referredtotheDisabilityServicesDepartmentatthe    juniorcollege,Mr.Nadadidnotrecommendanyadditional    services. q   ` AtthesixmonthreviewhearingheldonNovember2, T  2004,thecourtorderedthatAlicecontinuetoreceive 7  reunificationservices.InlightofMr.Winner'sreport, j  thecourtalsoorderedthatAliceparticipateina M  psychologicalevaluation.(CT226.) 0  ` ThechildrenremainedplacedwithVictoriaA.until  December10,2004.Theywerereturnedtothehomeof  thepaternalgrandmother,LoriL.,afterVictoria's  husbandwaschargedwithdrivingundertheinfluence.(CT l 298.) O  ` OnDecember24,2004,thepsychologist,Dr.Freud, 2 providedhisreporttoMr.Nada.Dr.Freudconcluded e thatAlicehadanIQof65whichis"indicativeofMild H MentalRetardation."(CT285.)AccordingtoDr.Freud, +  , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  'E  'EE݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  $F  theVerbalIQof65demonstratesthatshehasavery  poorfundofgeneralinformation,doesnotabstract  verywell,haspoorcalculationskills,has g difficultyrememberingandlearningnewmaterial, J andstruggleswithpracticalandsocialjudgement. - } Ibelievethatthisisherprimaryproblemrather !`  thanadiagnosablementalillness.$FF݌ !C! Ќ , ,' X444` X '  (CT285.)Dr.Freudconcludedhisreportbyreiterating "&" thatAlice'sreasoning,knowledgeandjudgmentare # # impairedbydiminishedintellectualfunctioning"and $$ recommendingtoMrNadathatAlice's"reunificationplan, % % ifnotalreadyinplace,needstoconsolidatethis b&!& persistingdisability."(CT285.) E'"'  ` Mr.Nadadidnotamendthecaseplantotakeinto ((x#(  accountthefactthatAlicehadthisdisabilitynordid  )[$) hesharethisreportwithcounseluntilearlyApril2005 XXT0~     4       KAliXT0X  XT0XXXT02~.   (RT23,28,29.)WhenAlice'scounselfinallylearnedof  thereport,hecontactedcountycounselandaskedthat v thereportbesenttotheregionalcenter.(RT23.) Y Aftertheregionalcenterreceivedthereport,itagain < concludedthatAlicewasnoteligibleforitsservices  o butaskedforadditionalrecords.(RT24.)Theagency  R didnothingtoobtainthoserecords.(RT24,2930.)  5 Alice'scounselobtainedthoserecordsinearlyMayand   submittedthemtotheregionalcenter.(RT26.)Alice    receivednoresponsefromtheregionalcenteruntilthe    dayofthe12monthreviewhearingwhenshewasorally q  advisedthatshewasnoteligibleforregionalcenter T  services.(RT24.) 7   ` TheschoolrecordsshowedthatAlicehadbeen j  diagnosedasmentallyretardedatleastthreetimesby M  variousschooldistricts.In1996,theFreebieSchool 0 DistrictconcludedthatAlicewasdisabledbecauseof  "mentalretardation."Itreferredtoanearlier1993  reportthatindicatedthatAlicewasfunctioninginthe  "mentallyretardedrange."(RT3031.)In1999,a l psychologistfortheCowCountyUnifiedSchoolDistrict O concludedthatAlicewasretardedwithanIQinthe55to 2 65range.(RT31.) e  ` Mr.Nada'sinitialreportforthe12monthreview H hearingrecommendedthatreunificationservicesbe + terminated.(CT243.)Becauseofthatrecommendation,  therewasnoserviceplanforAliceattachedtothe  report.   ` Anattachedreportfromtheparentingprogramnoted g thatAlicehadcompletedalloftherequiredclassesand J labsbutthatshewasslowtograspthematerialsbecause - } ofcomprehensionproblemsandthatshedidnotinteract !`  withherchildrenverymuchinthelabs.(CT27280.) !C! ThereportrecommendedthatifAlicewastoreunifywith "&" herchildren,sheshouldbeprovidedwithaninhome # # supportservice,suchaLeapsandBounds,toassisther $$ inraisingherchildren.(CT280.) % %  ` ThetwelvemonthreviewhearingwasheldonDecember b&!& 2,2005.(CT347;RT1840.)BothAlice'scounseland E'"' thechild'scounselobjectedthatreasonableserviceshad ((x#( notbeenprovidedbecauseoftheagency'sfailuretodo  )[$) anythingtoamendtheserviceplantotakeAlice's  disabilityintoaccount,failuretonotifytheservice  providersofAlice'sconditionsothattheycouldamend v theirservicestotakeAlice'sdisabilityintoaccount, Y andfailuretotimelynotifycounselofDr.Freud's < reportsothatcounselcouldpursuethematterwiththe  o regionalcenteronAlice'sbehalf.(RT2932.)Counsel  R fortheagencyadmittedthatAlice'sfailuretomakeas  5 muchprogressastheagencywouldhavelikedwas"nother   fault"(RT27)butarguedthattheonlysourceof    servicesforpeoplewhoarementallyretardedisthe    regionalcenterandthattherewasnothingelsethe q  agencycouldhavedoneforher.(RT26.) T   ` Thejuvenilecourtconcludedthattheregional 7  centerwastheonlysourceofservicestoassistAlicein j  properlycompletinghercaseplanandthatevenifthe M  Dr.Freud'sreporthadbeenprovidedearlier,the 0 conclusionthatregionalcenterwouldhavereacheda  differentconclusionaboutAlice'seligibilityfor  serviceswaspurelyspeculative.(RT36.)Thecourtthen  foundthatreturnofthechildrentoAlice'scustody l continuedtocreateasubstantialriskofdetrimentto O them,thatreasonableserviceshadbeenprovided,that 2 Alicehadparticipatedregularlyinthecaseplanandbut e hadmadeonlylimitedprogress.(RT37.)Thecourtwent H ontoorderthatreunificationservicesbeterminatedand + setasection366.26hearingforApril2,2006.(RT38.)   ` OnDecember6,2006,Alicefiledatimelynoticeof  intenttofilethispetition.(CT391.)  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0      &  `  ARGUMENT`Ga thaԌ - } Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0  '- ;a I !C!     (b  THEJUVENILECOURT'SDETRIMENTFINDINGISNOTSUPPORTED "&" BYSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE(bOb݌ # # Ќ       ` Section366.21,subdivision(f)isthestatutethat $$ setsforththeproceduresthejuvenilecourtmustfollow ,&|!% ata12monthreviewhearing.Thatstatuteprovidesin ' #& pertinentpart: L)$'  , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  [d  Atthepermanencyhearing,thecourtshalldetermine +') thepermanentplanforthechild,whichshall ,'* includeadeterminationofwhetherthechildwill  bereturnedtothechild'shomeand,ifso,when,  withinthetimelimitsofsubdivision(a)ofSection v 361.5.Thecourtshallorderthereturnofthe Y childtothephysicalcustodyofhisorherparent < orlegalguardianunlessthecourtfinds,bya  o preponderanceoftheevidence,thatthereturnof  R thechildtohisorherparentorlegalguardian  5 wouldcreateasubstantialriskofdetrimenttothe   safety,protection,orphysicaloremotionalwell    beingofthechild....[dd݌    Ќ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  h  hEi݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  i  Thesocialworkershallhavetheburdenof T  establishingthatdetriment.iBj݌ 7  Ќ , ,' X444` X '   ` Section366.21,subdivision(c)requiresthesocial j  workertofileareportwiththecourtcontaininghisor   herrecommendationsfordispositionofthematteratthat : hearing.Thestatutespecificallyrequiresthesocial  workerwhorecommendsthatthechildnotbereturnedto Z parentalcustodyto"specifywhythereturnofthechild : wouldbedetrimentaltothechild." z  ` Thejuvenilecourtmadeadetrimentfindinginthis  Z casebutthereisnothinginthesocialworker'sreport  tosupportthefindingthatreturntoparentalcustody *z wouldhavebeendetrimentaltothechildren.Thesole   statementinthesocialworker'sreportconcerning J" detrimentisasfollows: #*  , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  o  oo݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  p  Alice...wasgiven12monthstoreunifywithher M&! childrenandhasnosuitableresidencetoprovide 0'" fortheircare.Thechildrenwouldcontinuetobe (c# atriskifreturnedtohercustody,assheresides (F$ withherboyfriendandhisfamily.Ms.A.has ))%  statedherboyfriendwillnotbeapartofher * &! children'slives,yetsheremainsinhishomeand +&" hasdecidedagainstpursuingherownresidence ,'# althoughCSAhasprovidedaProFamilyworkerto  assisthertoseekhousing.pp݌  Ќ , ,' X444` X '  (CT252.)Noadditionalevidenceconcerningdetriment v wasofferedatthehearing. Y  ` Thisstatementofdetrimentcontainsnofactsthat < demonstratehoworwhythechildrenwouldbeatriskif  o thechildrenwerereturnedtohercustodytolivewith  R herintheboyfriend'shome.Thereisnoevidencethat  5 theagencyhadcheckedouttheboyfriendandfoundhimor   hishometobeunsuitableforthechildreninanyway.    Theonlyevidenceintherecordconcerningtheboyfriend    isthattheboyfriend,ManuelC.,hastwochildrenofhis q  ownanineyearoldandaoneyearold.(CT213.)There T  isnoevidencethathehasabusedorneglectedhisown 7  childrenandnoevidencethathishomeisuninhabitable j  orisotherwisenotasafeplaceforchildren.A M  parent'slackofseparatehousing,inandofitself,may 0 notserveasthebasisforadetrimentfinding.   ` InDavidB.v.SuperiorCourt(2004)123Cal.App.4th  768,773,theagencyrecommendedagainstreturninga  childtoherfather'scustodybecausehelivedinshared l housingwithrelativesandhadnohomeofhisown.There O wasnoevidencethatthefatherwasevertoldbythe 2 agencyorbythejuvenilecourtthatseparatehousingwas e aconditionofhavinghischildrenreturnedtohim.The H juvenilecourtacceptedtheagency'srecommendationand + concludeditcouldnotsafelyreleasethechildtothe  father'scustodybecauseofhishousingsituation.The  courtofappealreversedthatfindingandtheorder  denyinghimcustodyofthechild.Notingthattheagency g hadtheburdenofprovingthatresidinginthat J householdwouldconstituteasignificantdangertothe - } child,thecourtheldthattheagencyhadpresentedno !`  evidencethatshowedthatthechildwouldbeatrisk. !C! Thecourtfurtherheldthatthejuvenilecourterredin "&" justacceptingtheagency'sjudgmentontheissuebecause # # theagency"specificallyhadtheburdenofprovingthe $$ contention,itwasentitledtonosuchdeference."(Ibid: % % emphasisintheoriginal.) b&!&  ` InInreDanielleM.(1989)215Cal.App.3d1267,the E'"' courtreversedafindingthatitwouldbedetrimentalto ((x#( placethefather'schildrenwithhimbasedonthesocial  )[$) worker'sargumentthattherewasrisktothechildren )>%* becausehewasunemployedandlivingwithhismother.In *!&+ doingso,thecourtsaid, +',  , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  C  CՀ݌ ,'- Ќ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  p  Heretherewasnoevidenceofhow[thefather's]  lackofemploymentandaseparateresidencewould  adverselyaffecthisdaughters,andtoholdthese v factorsdetrimentalperseisunthinkable.... Y "Theissuepresentedbythisappealisveryclearly < drawn.Canacourtlawfullydepriveaparentwhois  o abletoprovidegoodcare,ofthecustodyofhis/her  R childsimplybecausetheparentisunemployedand  5 sharesahomewithhis/herparent?Thenegative   answerurgedbyappellantisabsolutelyrequired    unlessthiscourtdecidestolicensesocialservices    toremoveallchildrenfromtheunemployedandfrom q  thosewhobychoiceornecessityshareahomewitha T  friendorrelative.Suchintrusivenessmustnotbe 7  toleratedbyafreesociety."p݌ j  Ќ , ,' X444` X '  (Id.atp.1271.)Thefactthattheparentdoesnothave M  separatehousing,inandofitself,doesnotestablish 0 thatthereisasubstantialriskofdetrimenttothe  childreniftheyarereturnedtotheparents'custodyin  thathousingsituation.Muchmoreisrequired.The  agencyhastheburdenofestablishingthatreturnto l parentalcustodywouldposeasubstantialriskof O detrimentaltothechildandmustsetforththeevidence 2 ofthatdetrimentinthesocialworker'sreport.The e agencydidnotdosointhiscase. H  ` Alice'scaseplancontainednorequirementthatshe + obtainherownhousingasaconditionofhavingher  childrenreturnedtoher.(CT6364.)Herlackof  separatehousingwasnotareasonherchildrenbecame  dependentsofthecourtherpoorjudgmentinthe g selectionofbabysittersandfailuretoactpromptlyto J protectherchildrenwhenshediscoveredthatthe - } babysitterwashurtingthemwerethebasesforthe !`  dependency.Alicehadcompletedtwoprogramsdesignedto !C! addresstheseissuesandalthoughshedidnotnecessarily "&" comprehendeverythingthoseprogramstriedtoteachher, # # theagencyneitherassertednorestablishedthata $$ similarsituationwaslikelytoariseagaininthefuture % % orwaslikelytoariseifsheresidedwithManuel. b&!&  ` ThereissimilarlynoevidencethatAlicewas E'"' advisedthatifshedidnotobtainseparatehousingher ((x#( childrenwouldnotbereturnedtoher.Consequently,her  )[$) failuretohaveobtainedseparatehousing,particularly )>%* intheabsenceofanyevidenceofdetrimentifthe *!&+  childrenweretolivewithherinthathousing,maynot +', beusedtosupportaconclusionthatthechildrencannot  besafelyreturnedtohercustody.    , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  ԏ  ԏf݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?    What[theagency]wasrequiredtoestablishwasthat Y releasing[thechild]to[thefather's]custody < would"createasubstantialriskofdetrimenttothe  o safety,protection,orphysicaloremotionalwell  R beingofthechild."(Welf.&Inst.Code,366.22,  5 subd.(a).)Thatstandard,whilevaguelywordedto   besure,mustbeconstruedasafairlyhighone.It    cannotmeanmerelythattheparentinquestionis    lessthanideal,didnotbenefitfromthe q  reunificationservicesasmuchaswemighthave T  hoped,orseemslesscapablethananavailable 7  fosterparentorotherfamilymember.݌ j  Ќ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  P  P݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  i  Wedonotgetidealparentsinthedependency 0 system.Butthefactofthematteristhatwedonot  getidealparentsanywhere.EvenOzzieandHarriet  weren'treallyOzzieandHarriet.Idealparentsare  arareifnotimaginarybreed.Someofusget l luckierthanotherswhenitcomestoparents,and O mostwhoworkinthissystemareabletolookback 2 andrealizehowfortunatetheywere.ButtheState e ofCaliforniaisnotinthebusinessofevaluating H parentsandredistributingtheiroffspringbased + uponperceivedmerit.iߖ݌  Ќ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  R  R݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  k  Theparentswhocomethroughthedependencysystem  aremoreinneedofhelpthanmost.Ifweare g lucky,theyareparentswhocanlearntoovercome J theproblemswhichlandedtheirchildreninthe - } system,andwhocandemonstratethededicationand !`  abilitytoprovidefortheirchildren'sneedsinan !C! appropriatemanner.Theywillnotturninto "&" superstars,andtheywillnotwinthelotteryand # # moveintoabeachfrontcondotwoblocksfroma $$ perfectschool.k݌ % % Ќ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?    ݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?    Thisisahardfacttoaccept.Wearedealing,after E'"' all,withchildren,andthededicatedpeoplewho ((x#( worksohardtohelpthesefamiliesare  )[$) understandablydesirousofprovidingthosechildren )>%* thebestpossiblecircumstancesinwhichtogrowup. *!&+ Buttherearetimeswhenwehavetotakeastepback +', andmakesurethatwearenotlosingsightofour ,'- mandate.Wearelookingforpassinggradeshere,not  straightA's.݌  Ќ , ,' X444` X '  ݀(DavidB.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,123Cal.App.4that v pp.789790;emphasisadded.) Y Ѐ ` InlightofthefactthattheagencycitedAlice's < housingsituationasthesolereasonwhythechildren  o wouldbeatriskiftheywerereturnedtohercustodyand  R providednoevidenceofanykindastohowreturnto  5 Alice'scustodyinthathomewouldbedetrimentalfor   thesechildren,thereisnoevidentiarybasisforthe    court'sfindingthatthechildrencouldnotbesafely    returnedtoAlice'scustody.Therefore,theorder q  maintainingthechildrenincontinuedoutofhome T  placementmustbereversed. 7  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0      &  ئ  II.ئY )Ԍ M  Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0        THEJUVENILECOURT'SREASONABLESERVICESFINDINGISNOT 0 SUPPORTEDBYSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE.} YԌ  Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0     ` Section366.21,subdivision(f),alsoprovidesthat'M   d  <( ` hp xX<  d    Ū݌̌  $ X` X$    , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  _  Thecourtshallalsodeterminewhetherreasonable l servicesthatweredesignedtoaidtheparentor O legalguardiantoovercometheproblemsthatledto 2 theinitialremovalandcontinuedcustodyofthe e childhavebeenprovidedorofferedtotheparentor H legalguardian._ի݌ + Ќ , ,' X444` X '   ` Wheneverachildisremovedfromparentalcustody,  thejuvenilecourtisrequiredtoensurethatreasonable  reunificationservicesareprovidedtothefamilyunless  anduntiladeterminationismadepursuanttosection g 361.5subdivision(b)thatthecasefallswithinoneof J thestatutoryexceptionstotherequirementthat - } servicesbeprovided.(361.5subd.(a),(c);Inre !`  JasmineC.(1999)70Cal.App.4th71,75.)When !C! reunificationservicesareordered,thereunification "&" plan"mustbespecificallytailoredtofitthe # # circumstancesofeachfamily[citation],andmustbe $$ designedtoeliminatethoseconditionswhichledtothe % % juvenilecourt'sjurisdictionalfinding."(InreDinoE. b&!& (1992)6Cal.App.4th1768,1777)While"[r]eunification E'"' servicesneednotbeperfect.(ElijahR.v.Superior ((x#( Court(1998)66Cal.App.4th965,969),...theyshould  )[$) betailoredtothespecificneedsoftheparticularfam )>%* ily.(SteveJ.v.SuperiorCourt(1995)35Cal.App.4th *!&+ 798,810.)"(InreAlvinR.(2003)108Cal.App.4th962, +', 972.)"Eachreunificationplanmustbeappropriateto ,'- theparticularindividualandbasedontheuniquefacts  ofthatindividual.(InreMichaelS.(1987)188  Cal.App.3d1448,1458.)"(InreMisakoR.(1991)2 v Cal.App.4th538,545.) Y  ` Atthesixmonthreviewhearinginthiscase,itwas < apparentfromMr.Winner'sreportthatAlicehadserious  o problemsincomprehendingthematerialsbeingpresented  R intheservicesprogramsmandatedbyherserviceplan.  5 (CT192193.)Consequently,thecourtordereda   psychologicalevaluationtodeterminethelevelof    Alice'sabilitytofunction.(CT226.)Alicecooperated    inthepsychologicalevaluationandinDecember2004, q  lessthantwomonthsintothesecondsixmonth T  reunificationperiod,theagencyreceivedDr.Freud's 7  report.ThatreportindicatedthatthereasonAlicewas j  havingsomuchdifficultycomprehendingthecontentof M  theangermanagementandparentingclasseswasthatshe 0 hadanIQof65.Asaresult,shehadapoorfundof  generalknowledge,didnot"abstract"verywell,hadpoor  calculationskills,waslimitedherabilitytoremember  andlearnnewmaterial,andstruggledwithpracticaland l socialjudgment.Dr.FreudinformedMr.Nadathat O Alice'sreasoning,knowledge,andjudgmentwereimpaired 2 bythisdisabilityandrecommendedthatherreunification e planshouldtaketheseproblemsintoaccount.(CT285.) H Theagency'sresponsetothisinformationwastodo + nothing.Thereweremanythingsthattheagencycould  haveandshouldhavedonetotailorAlice'sreunification  plantomeetherindividualneeds.Instead,itdid  nothing g  ` First,Mr.Nadacouldhavemadeanewreferralto J theregionalcenterassoonashegotthereport.Hedid - } notdoso.Ifhetrulybelievedthattheregionalcenter !`  wastheonlyagencythatcouldprovideservicesto !C! someonewithAlice'scondition,thenapromptreferral "&" andanewassessmentwasimmediatelycalledfor.The # # clockwasrunningonAlice'sreunificationperiod. $$ Insteadofmakingapromptreferral,Mr.Nadadid % % nothing.  Second,uponlearningofAlice's b&!& condition,Mr.NadacouldhavereferredAlicetothe E'"' BasicLifeSkillsClassesrecommendedbytheCASAinher ((x#( sixmonthreviewreport.(CT220.)Instead,hedid  )[$) nothing. )>%*  ` Third,Mr.NadacouldhavereferredAlicetothe *!&+ DisabilityServicesDepartmentatthejuniorcollegethat +', hadbeenrecommendedbytheregionalcenterthefirst ,'- timeitassessedAliceinAugust2004.(CT233.)The  regionalcenterhadconcludedthatAlicehadalearning  disability(CT231)whichshouldhavebeenacluethat v Alicewasunlikelytobeabletosuccessfullylearnina Y programthatinvolvedhomeworkpacketsthatshewas < requiredtocompleteandturnin,aswasthecasewith  o theboththeparentingprogramandtheangermanagement  R program.(CT191,193.)Mr.Nadadidnotmakeany  5 changesinAlice'sreunificationplanatthesixmonth   reviewhearinginresponsetothisrecommendationsothat    shehadsomechanceofbeingabletolearnthematerial.    Nevertheless,whenhereceivedDr.Freud'sreportthat q  indicatedthatAlicehadtroublerememberingandlearning T  newmaterialbecauseofherdisability,hecertainly 7  shouldhaveconsideredareferraltotheDisability j  ServicesDepartmentatthejuniorcollegeasawayto M  addressthisproblem.Instead,hedidnothing. 0  ` Fourth,ifMr.Nadathoughtthatitwassoimportant  forAlicetogetseparatehousing,eventhoughheknew  shecouldnotgetajobbecauseofherpoorskills,he  couldhavereferredhertoavocationaltrainingprogram l forthedisabledwhereshecouldlearnsomejobskillsas O wasrecommendedbytheCASAinhersixmonthreview 2 report.(CT220.)Instead,hedidnothing. e  ` Fifth,Mr.NadacouldhavereferredAlicetoanin H homesupportprogramthatcouldcomeintothe + grandmother'shomewherethechildrenwerebeingcared  forduringthedayanddemonstrateparentingskillsas  wasrecommendedbytheparentingclasscounselorina  February8,2005lettertoMr.Nada.(CT279280.) g Instead,hedidnothing. J  ` Sixth,havingreceivedtheinformationonFebruary - } 8,2005thatAlicehadnotreallybenefitedfromthe !`  parentingclass,Mr.NadacouldhavereferredAliceto !C! theParentResourceCenterforfurtherassistanceand "&" withanexplanationofherspecialneedsasrecommended # # bythechildren'scounselandtheinitialsocialworker $$ atthedispositionhearing.(RT11.) % %  ` Seventh,Mr.NadacouldhaveprovidedacopyofDr. b&!& Freud'sreporttoAlice'sattorneyassoonashegotit E'"' andaskedhimforsuggestionsastohowtodealwith ((x#( regionalcenterandwhatelseshouldbedonetoaddress  )[$) Alice'sdisability.Instead,hedidnothing. )>%*  ` InApril,afterbeingpromptedbycountycounsel, *!&+ whowaspromptedbyAlice'scounsel,Mr.Nadafinally +', submittedDr.Freud'sreporttotheregionalcenter. ,'- Whentheregionalcenteragainresponded,onApril16,  2005,thatAlicewasnoteligibleforitsservicesbut  askedformoreinformation,Mr.Nadadidnothing.(RT v 30.)Hedidnotattempttoobtaintherequestedrecords. Y Hedidnotcontactcounselandaskthatcounselobtain < therequestedrecords.Instead,hedidnothing.Again,  o iftheregionalcenterwasindeedtheonlyagencythat  R couldprovideservicestosomeonewithAlice's  5 disability,itwouldseemthatapromptresponsetothe   regionalcenter'srequestwascalledfor.Atthatpoint,    Alicehadcompletedbothoftherequiredclassesandwas    receivingnocourtorderedservicesofanykind.IfMr. q  NadabelievedthatAlice'scompletionofthoseclasses T  wasinsufficienttojustifyreturningherchildrentoher 7  custody,itwasincumbentuponhimtolocateandprovide j  additionalservicesthatwouldenableAlicetolearnthe M  thingshefeltsheneededtolearninordertogether 0 childrenback.Instead,hedidnothing.   ` Mr.Nada'sfailuretoinformcounseloftheApril  letterdenyingeligibilitybutaskingforadditional  informationhadanotheradverseeffectonAlice.Because l counseldidnotknowofthenewdenial,counselwasnot O inapositiontoadviseAliceconcerningherrightto 2 appealtheregionalcenter'sdecision.(RT32.)Alice e wasrequiredtoexerciseherappealrightswithin30days H ofthedecision.(4710.5.)HadMr.Nadainformed + Alice'scounseloftheApril2005letterfromthe  regionalcenter,counselcouldhavefiledanappealon  Alice'sbehalfandthemattermighthavebeenresolvedin  mediation,aninformalmeeting,orotheradministrative g proceedingsbeforethetwelvemonthreviewhearing. J However,insteadofcontactingcounsel,Mr.Nadadid - } nothing. !`   ` ItisimportanttonotethatMr.Nadawasnot !C! preventedfromtakingfurtherstepstotailorthe "&" reunificationplantoAlice'sneedsbythefactthatthe # # casewasbetweenthesixandthetwelvemonthreviews $$ whenhereceivedthepsychologicalevaluation.Section % % 16501.1setsforththesocialworker'sobligations b&!& insofarascaseplansareconcerned.Subdivision(d)of E'"' thatstatuteprovidesthatcaseplansmustbeupdatedat ((x#( leasteverysixmonthsinconjunctionwitheachstatus  )[$) reviewhearingheldpursuanttosection366.21,butit )>%* alsorequiresthatthecaseplanmustbeupdatedasthe *!&+ needsofthechildandfamilydictate.Subdivision +', (d)(12)providesthatthecaseplanmustbeincludedin ,'- thecourtreportandconsideredateachreviewhearing,  butspecificallyprovidesthatmodificationstothecase  planmadeduringtheperiodbetweenreviewhearingsneed v notbeapprovedbythecourtifthesocialworker's Y supervisordeterminesthatthemodificationsfurtherthe < goalsoftheplan.Thus,Mr.Nadawasrequiredby  o section16501.1,subdivision(d)toupdatethecaseplan  R whenhelearnedtoAlice'sdisabilityfromDr.Freudin  5 Decemberandhewasnotrequiredtogetcourtpermission   tomodifytheplansolongashehadsupervisoryapproval    todoso.Instead,hedidnothing.     ` Itappearsthattheagencyandperhapsthecourt q  wereproceedingontheassumptionthatalltheagencyhad T  todoforaparentwhoismentallyimpairedistomakea 7  referraltotheregionalcenterandiftheregional j  centerdecidesnottodoanything,theyhavedonetheir M  dutytoprovidereasonableservices.Totheextentthat 0 theagencymayberelyingonInreVictoriaM.(1989)207  Cal.App.3d1317,acaseinwhichthiscourtfoundthat  thesameagencyhadfailedtoprovidereasonableservices  toadevelopmentallydisabledmotherbecauseitdidnot l referhertotheregionalcenter,thatrelianceis O misplaced.Whilethiscourtdidfindthatthefailureto 2 referthatmothertotheregionalcenterwasafailureto e providereasonableservices,italsofoundthat,even H thoughmanyotherserviceswereofferedtothemother, + thoseserviceswereinadequatebecausenoaccommodation  wasmadeforthemother'sspecialneedseventhough  everyonewasawarethatthemotherhadmental  limitations.(Id.atp.1329.)"Inlightof[the g mother's]limitations,theservicesofferedwere J insufficient."(Id.atp.1330.) - }  ` Inthiscase,thecountycounselarguedthatthe !`  regionalcenterwastheonlywaytheagencycouldprovide !C! servicestoaparentwithmentallimitationswastorefer "&" tothemtotheregionalcenter.(RT2525.)Thejuvenile # # courtconcludedthatbecausetheregionalcenter $$ continuedtoinsistthatAlicedidnotqualifyforits % % services,therewerenootherservicesavailableto b&!& addressAlice'slimitedcapabilitiesandthatreasonable E'"' serviceswerethereforeprovidedtoher.(RT3637.)As ((x#( wehaveseen,thisfindingisnotsupportedbythe  )[$) record.Therecordshowsthatseveralother )>%* professionalsrecommendedotherservicestoMr.Nadathat *!&+ couldhaveassistedsomeonewithAlice'sdisabilities, +', includingtheDisabilityServicesCenteratthejunior ,'- college,theLeapsandBoundsinhomesupportprogram,  vocationaltrainingprogramsforthedisabled,theParent  ResourceCenter,andLifeSkillsClasses.Butinsteadof v investigatingtheavailabilityoftheseservicesor Y makingreferralstothem,Mr.Nadadidnothing. <  ` Whileareferraltotheregionalcenteriscertainly  o appropriateincaseswheretheparentappearstohave  R limitedmentalcapacity,therefusaloftheregional  5 centertoprovideservicesdoesnotrelievetheagencyof   itsobligationtomakeaccommodationsforthatparent's    limitationswhendesigningandimplementingthe    reunificationplan.Suchaccommodationscouldhaveand q  shouldhavebeenmadeforAlice'sdisabilityinthe T  programsthatwerepartofherreunificationplan. 7  Insteadoftailoringtheparentingclassandanger j  managementclassesforsomeonewhocannotreadandwrite M  verywell(astheparentingskillscounselordidin 0 VictoriaM.,supra,207Cal.App.3datp.1329),Alicewas  givenwrittenhomeworkandthencriticizedwhenshecould  notcompletetheassignmentscorrectly.(CT193.)   ` InDavidB.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,thecourt l faultedtheagencyfordoingsomethingverysimilarwhen O itclaimedthatithadprovidedthefatherwith 2 reasonableservicesinfindinghousingbyprovidinghim e withalistofhousingresourceswithouttakinginto H accountthathecouldnotreadthelistbecausehewas + illiterate.(123Cal.App.4thatp.791.)Becauseno  otherservicesthatweretailoredtoAlice'sdisabilities  wereofferedorprovided,thereissimplynoevidenceto  supportthecourt'sfindingthatreasonableserviceswere g providedinthiscase. J Ѐ ` Beforethejuvenilecourtmayfindthatreasonable - } serviceshavebeenprovided,the !`   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?  ~  ~݌̌ , ,' X444` X '   , ,?+4 44` hp x X?    therecordshouldshowthatthesupervisingagency "&" identifiedtheproblemsleadingtothelossof # # custody,offeredservicesdesignedtoremedythose $$ problems,maintainedreasonablecontactwiththe % % parentsduringthecourseoftheserviceplan,and b&!& madereasonableeffortstoassisttheparentsin E'"' areaswherecomplianceproveddifficult(suchas ((x#( helpingtoprovidetransportationandofferingmore  )[$) intensiverehabilitationserviceswhereothershave )>%* failed). ݌ *!&+ Ќ , ,' X444` X '  (DavidB.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,123Cal.App.4thatpp +', 793794[quotingInreRivaM.(1991)235Cal.App.3d403, ,'- 414].)Theagencymadenoefforttoofferservicesthat  weredesignedtoremedytheproblemscausedbyAlice's  disability.ItmadeabsolutelynoefforttoassistAlice v inthoseareaswherecomplianceproveddifficultbecause Y ofherdisabilities.Itgaveherstandardreunification < servicesdesignedforpeopleofaverageintelligenceand  o madenoattemptstofindotherservicesorredesignthe  R servicesalreadyofferedwhenitbecameclearsixmonths  5 intothecasethatAlicelackedtheintellectualability   tobenefitfromthoseservices.Thatbeingthecase,the    court'sfindingthattheagencyprovidedreasonable    servicesdesignedtoovercometheproblemsthatcaused q  Alicetocontinuetobedeprivedofthecustodyofher T  childrenisnotsupportedbysubstantialevidenceand 7  mustbereversed. j  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0      &  "  " sԌ̌ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0  XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0    ;  CONCLUSION; Ԍ 0 Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0  X  Inlightoftheforegoing,thiscourtis  respectfullyrequestedtoissueawritofmandate  orderingreversaloftheDecember2,2006reviewhearing  orderinsofarasitwasnotsupportedbyanyevidenceof l detrimenttothechildreniftheywerereturnedto O Alice'scustodyandfoundthatreasonableserviceswere 2 providedtoAliceduringthesecondsixmonth e reunificationperiod.' H   XT0XXXT0  X   XT0XX XT0 ݌̌XT0XXXT0    XT0XXXT0     XT0XX XT0Dated:January20,2006     p Respectfully  submitted, ,݌  ЌXT0XXXT0    XT0XXXT0   ;  XT0XX XT0 ;݌̌XT0XXXT0    XT0XXXT0   V  XT0XX XT0 V݌̌XT0XXXT0    XT0XXXT0   q  XT0XX XT0 q݌̌XT0XXXT0    XT0XXXT0     XT0XX XT0 `     h      p JANETG.SHERWOOD ݌ - } ЌXT0XXXT0    XT0XXXT0      XT0XX XT0 `     h      p Attorneyfor !`  Petitioner  ~݌ !C! ЌXT0XXXT0   `     h      p AliceA.  "&" XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0      &  3   CERTIFICATIONOFWORDCOUNT3    Ԍ  Ќ XT0XXXT0XT0XXXT0     ` I.JanetG.Sherwood,herebycertifyunderpenalty v ofperjuryunderthelawsoftheStateofCalifornia V that,accordingtothewordprocessingprogramusedto   preparethisbrief,petitioner'smemorandumofpointsand & v authoritiescontains6600words.'    Dated:January20,2006 &   `     h      p      x   `     h     JanetG.Sherwood I