Skip to content
Name: Amber R. v. Superior Court
Case #: G035611
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/19/2006

Mother’s parental rights were terminated, and the 15-year old minor resided in a group home. In conjunction with a 366.3 review hearing, mother filed a section 388 petition seeking to be identified as an individual “important” to the minor under section 366.3, subdivision (e) and for an order allowing visitation and telephone contact with her. The trial court found that mother had no standing to file the petition. Mother’s petition for writ of mandate was denied. Mother had no standing to bring the 388 petition. Section 366.3, subdivision (e)’s focus is not on the interest of the person who wishes to maintain a relationship with the child, but with the child. The decision as to who is “important to the child” is made by the court upon recommendation of the Department. Here, both the Department and the minor opposed any visitation by mother. The statute does not contain a provision for parents whose rights have been terminated. Only the minor or the Department can request a determination.