Skip to content
Name: In re Ryan K.
Case #: B235259
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/29/2012
Summary

The juvenile court may consider issues beyond those giving rise to reversal where new developments affecting the minor’s interest arise during the appeal. In a prior appeal from a dependency order granting father custody and ordering visitation for mother, the court reversed the visitation order only, finding that the trial court erred in giving father discretion over visits. After the remittitur issued, mother filed a 388 petition, presenting new evidence that the minor was neglected in father’s custody. The social worker’s report substantiated the evidence in mother’s petition. The juvenile court denied the petition, noting that it only had jurisdiction to consider the visitation issue. In this appeal, the appellate court again reversed and remanded. Juvenile courts may consider matters that have transpired while an appeal was pending. When the appellate court reverses, the juvenile court must implement the appellate court’s directive in light of the current circumstances. Here, circumstances had changed because mother had progressed and father had revealed poor parenting skills. Although the prior opinion and order dealt only with a narrow component of the court’s prior orders, visitation, the limited holding did not deprive the juvenile court of the authority to act in the minor’s best interest. Upon remand, the juvenile court can determine where the minor’s best interests lie.