M.C., In re (2023) A165424 A165424; filed 2/6/23. ![[Files/CaseFiles/A165424.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165424.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Reunification case-plan services; quoting In re M.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 412, 424. Jurisdiction was affirmed, but removal and unsupported services were reversed. > “When the court orders a parent to participate in a program—such as parent education, counseling, parenting programs, etc.—the program must be ‘designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.’ ” (In re M.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 412, 424.) “In other words, the court cannot arbitrarily order services that are ‘not reasonably designed’ to eliminate the behavior or circumstances that led to the court taking jurisdiction of the child.” (Ibid.) — M.C., In re (2023) A165424, slip op., p. 21.