Skip to content
Name: In re Randalynne G.
Case #: E028904
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/24/2002
Subsequent History: Rehg. den. 5/14/02

At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing on September 5, 2000, the court found the minor unadoptable and ordered long-tem foster care. In December 2000 the mother and father filed separate petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 asking that reunification services resume. At the second Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing on March 14, 2001, the court selected guardianship as the permanent plan for the minor and ordered that visitation between the parents and the child was to be “directed” by the guardian. A “fractious relationship” existed between the parents and the guardian, but twice monthly visits were worked out informally though the Department of Public Service’s intervention. At a post-guardianship contested hearing on visitation July 5, 2001, the court affirmed its earlier visitation order, although it approved the twice monthly visits that were ongoing. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary denial of both section 388 petitions and the order for guardianship. It holds, however, that the March 14 order granting full discretion to the guardian was the equivalent of no visitation order, reversed that order and, because more than a year had passed since the order was made, remanded with directions to the trial court to consider current circumstances in crafting a new visitation order.