We have already found the Department failed to demonstrate reasonable services were provided to Father during the relevant period. Because the reasonable services and active efforts standards essentially (C.F., 230 supra, “ ‘are undifferentiable’ ” Cal.App.4th at p. 238), we conclude no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that active efforts were made on behalf of Father. The Department contends active efforts were not required because Father not part of the Indian “was family” having been out of contact with Minors for two years before the dependency petition was filed; we have rejected this argument already. The citation to cases finding no Department’s active efforts required are inapposite, involving parents for whom active efforts would be clearly futile. (Letitia (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1016 [active V. v. Superior Court efforts not required substantial but unsuccessful efforts have just been made “where . . . in a juvenile dependency case involving one child, and the parent has shown no desire to in a dependency case involving a second child]; (2009) 173 In re K.B. change” Cal.App.4th 1275, 1284 [active efforts not required where clearly father’s “history demonstrates the futility of offering reunification services: He is a registered sex offender with a prior conviction for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 . . . [and] the court sustained the allegations that he sexually molested [the minors’ DISPOSITION The portions of the juvenile disposition order finding reasonable services court’s were provided to Father and active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family are reversed, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We have already found the Department failed to demonstrate reasonable services were provided to Father during the relevant period. Because the reasonable services and active efforts standards “ ‘are essentially undifferentiable’ ” (C.F., supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 238), we conclude no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that active efforts were made on behalf of Father. The Department contends active efforts were not required because Father “was not part of the Indian family” having been out of contact with Minors for two years before the dependency petition was filed; we have rejected this argument already. The Department’s citation to cases finding no active efforts required are inapposite, involving parents for whom active efforts would be clearly futile. (Letitia V. v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1016 [active efforts not required “where substantial but unsuccessful efforts have just been made . . . in a juvenile dependency case involving one child, and the parent has shown no desire to change” in a dependency case involving a second child]; In re K.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1284 [active efforts not required where father’s “history clearly demonstrates the futility of offering reunification services: He is a registered sex offender with a prior conviction for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 . . . [and] the court sustained the allegations that he sexually molested [the minors’ DISPOSITION The portions of the juvenile court’s disposition order finding reasonable services were provided to Father and active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family are reversed, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A148171.DOCX