Skip to content
Name: In re Josiah S.
Case #: B151283
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 05/09/2002
Subsequent History: None

Josiah S. was born in November 1997 with multiple serious medical problems and remained hospitalized until he was 2 months old, when he was discharged to his mother’s care. The mother refused to allow home health care nurses to monitor Josiah. In June 1998 Josiah was hospitalized because he was dehydrated. Hospital personnel reported appellant’s behavior was bizarre and she had difficulty feeding Josiah, though hospital personnel had no problem feeding him. At a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on November 3, 1998, the court sustained a petition alleging appellant failed to obtain critical medical care, cooperate with home nurses, and had emotional problems limiting her ability to care for the infant. Ultimately, the trial court orders terminating reunification services and ordering long term foster care for the minor were affirmed. Subsequently, the trial court summarily denied the mother’s request for a contested status review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3, subdivision (e), where she wanted to present evidence that her child’s medical condition was the result of physical problems and not the result of her inability to care for him. Appellant filed a subsequent request for a section 388 hearing on similar issues. The trial court summarily denied both the request for a contested 6- month status review hearing and the section 388 petition. Here the Court of Appeal reversed the order denying appellant a contested hearing under section 366.3, subdivision (e) and the summary denial of the section 388 petition. It agreed with the conclusion reached in In re Kelly D. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 433, where the Third District confirmed a parent’s right to a contested hearing at the post-permanency planning review. [Note: although appellant participated in contested hearings after this appeal was filed, the Court of Appeal refused to dismiss this appeal as moot because it was not clear that later hearings addressed the same issues and because it “felt the need to address . . . ongoing problems between the juvenile court and appellant.” ]