The father of S. L. E. and K. R. E. appeals a juvenile court order terminating reunification services, denying his motion for reunification, and extending temporary custody in the children’s maternal grandparents. He contests the sufficiency of the evidence. Because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of reunification services, we reverse that part of the judgment. For reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of the reunification motion and the extension of temporary custody and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The father obtained legal custody of S. L. E. and K. R. E. pursuant to a divorce decree in August 2000. The girls were ages three and nine months,1 respectively. In May 2004, the juvenile court adjudicated the children deprived. The court found that the father had physically abused S. L. E., citing severe bruising on the child’s buttocks and thighs and a large bald spot on her scalp from her hair having been pulled out of her head. The court placed the children in the custody of the Department of Family and Children Services DFCS and ordered DFCS to develop a plan for the father to be reunited with the children.
DFCS placed the children with their maternal grandparents. The reunification plan, which DFCS developed in August 2004, contained the following goals for the father: a obtain and maintain safe, stable housing and income appropriate to meet the needs of his family; b cooperate with a psychological evaluation and any recommended treatment; c attend and complete parenting classes; d cooperate with a substance abuse evaluation and any recommended treatment, including random drug screens; e cooperate with an anger management inventory and follow any recommended treatment; and f cooperate with DFCS, including paying court-ordered child support.2
