Skip to content
Name: In re C.J.
Case #: E043005
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/11/2007

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying parents 388 petitions, but “internally inconsistent” form JV-180 should be reformed. Parents appealed the juvenile court order denying their 388 petitions, contending that it was error not to allow an evidentiary hearing on the petitions. The appellate court disagreed that the court failed to conduct a hearing or summarily denied the petitions. The court did conduct a hearing, but did not allow testimony from the parents. It did receive written evidence and heard substantial argument from counsel. The attorneys concurred with this manner of proceeding. Parents did not identify what further evidence they would have presented, nor did they demonstrate how granting services to the parents would be in the best interests of the children. The court did, however, suggest that the dependency court needed to alter form JV-180, which seemingly both grants and denies hearings on 388 petitions simultaneously.