Skip to content
Name: In re D.P.
Case #: D081396
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/28/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 6/30/2023

(ordered published 6/30/2023)

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying placement of the minor with the adoptive parents of minor’s siblings. The minor was removed from parents at birth and placed with Defacto Parents. Shortly after reunification services were terminated and the section 366.26 hearing was set, the adoptive parents of minor’s siblings (Adoptive Parents) filed a section 388 petition, requesting that minor be placed with them. Following an evidentiary hearing the juvenile court denied the petition, finding that it was not in minor’s best interest to be moved to another foster family. Minor and Adoptive Parents appealed…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Damari Y.
Case #: A166037
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/12/2023

Justice requires, in unusual circumstances that cast doubt on juvenile court’s findings, that an evidentiary hearing be granted on a section 388 petition. The minor was removed from Mother when he tested positive for amphetamines at birth. Father was incarcerated throughout the proceedings. Father was determined to be the biological father and reunification services were ordered for him. Father’s counsel and social workers had significant difficulties in communicating with Father due to the COVID-related policies of the prison facility, which denied phone calls and was not regularly delivering mail. Services were terminated at the twelve-month review and a section 366.26…

View Full Summary
Name: In re N.F.
Case #: E076330
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/20/2021

Mother's completion of a 90-day drug treatment program did not demonstrate a material change of circumstances necessary to grant a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. The minor N.F. was removed after she and Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine at her birth. Following three years of services, N.F. was returned to her parents and jurisdiction was terminated. Five months later, N.F. was again detained when both parents relapsed. Following a hearing on a new petition, the parents were denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13). Six months later, both Mother and Father filed petitions under…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Samuel A.
Case #: B302700
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 09/24/2020

The juvenile court erred when it summarily denied mother's 388 petition based on subsequent evidence. The 3-year-old minor was found to be a dependent of the juvenile court based on mother's alcohol abuse and mental instability. Prior to the six-month review hearing, mother petitioned pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 390 to set aside the jurisdiction order after a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation concluded mother was not mentally ill and did not meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse disorder. The juvenile court incorrectly characterized mother's petition as an untimely new trial motion under Code of Civil…

View Full Summary
Name: In re I.B.
Case #: G058814
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/07/2020

The juvenile court did not err when it returned three-year-old minor to mother's custody following her 388 petition. The trial court granted mother's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to return her three-year-old son, I.B., to her custody. The court ordered that I.B.'s five-year-old sibling A.B. would remain with the foster parents who had been interested in adopting both boys. I.B.'s attorney appealed, arguing that the siblings should not have been separated. Also, I.B. and the Agency agreed that the juvenile court erred because mother did not demonstrate a change in circumstances or show that changing I.B.'s custody was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.P.
Case #: B302804
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 07/31/2020

Termination of parental rights was affirmed where failure to notice father for jurisdiction and disposition hearings was harmless error. Father was arrested for possession of controlled substances. A month later, a removal order was issued for the infant minor. Notice was sent to father's last known address. Father did not appear for the detention hearing. The juvenile court found that due diligence had not been completed as to father, and put the jurisdiction hearing over. Although there was no evidence of additional notice, at the jurisdiction hearing the court found the Department had completed…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.M., J.R.
Case #: B298473
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/17/2020

Where mother had addressed all of the court's concerns when it terminated services, the court abused its discretion when it denied her 388 petition to place the minor with her. Following termination of her services, mother addressed the domestic violence issues that formed the entire basis of the dependency action. She also addressed the court's other concerns by completing drug testing, receiving mental health services, and improving her living conditions. Since the termination of her services, mother had done everything asked of her, and presented evidence in the 388 hearing that in light of this change of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.T.
Case #: E072082
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/12/2019

The distant relatives of a dependent child had standing to appeal trial court's order under section 387; also, they had standing to appeal the denial of their section 388 petition. The minor was placed with relatives, the B's, when he was removed from his mother at the age of nine months. While residing with them, he was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma. Meanwhile, the B's began refusing to communicate with the social worker, who they felt had insulted them. The Department detained the minor, placed him in a special health care needs foster home, and filed a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.F. et al
Case #: E072301
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/26/2009

Where father's notice of appeal explicitly stated it was from the 366.26 hearing, the appellate court could not liberally construe it to review an earlier order denying father's 388 petition. Father's 388 petition was denied on January, 22, 2019. Father's parental rights were terminated on March 7, 2019. Father filed a notice of appeal the same day, indicating that the appeal was from the order terminating parental rights. On appeal, father argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it summarily denied the January 388 petition. The appellate court found that it lacked jurisdiction…

View Full Summary
Name: M.L. v. Superior Court
Case #: A156130
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/03/2019

Although a section 388 petition was not the most appropriate means to modify a disposition order, it was within the court's discretion to grant the petition and remove the minors. Dependency proceedings were initiated in 2014 involving the minors, who were placed with their parents. Family maintenance reviews continuously took place, and there were various allegations of mistreatment of the minors. In 2018, the Department filed a modification petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, requesting that the minors be detained because of the risk of harm in the home. The juvenile court granted the…

View Full Summary