Skip to content
Name: In re Cody R.
Case #: D073527
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/17/2018

Parent had no standing to challenge the social worker's actions under the relative placement statutes where there was no showing that she could have reunified. The child was removed from parental custody after he was found severely malnourished to the point of starvation. The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition and bypassed reunification services based on a finding of severe physical abuse. It set a hearing under section 366.26. The court did not advise the parents that they could challenge this order only by way of a writ petition, but mother filed a notice of intent to file such a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.P.
Case #: B281438
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/26/2017

Reversal was required where the court failed to appoint counsel for mother before a hearing on her 388 petition. The minor resided in a group home after his legal guardianship was terminated. At the hearing to remove the minor from the guardianship, neither mother nor her counsel were present, and the court relieved counsel. Mother visited the minor in his group home and attended all subsequent court hearings without counsel. Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting reappointment of counsel, reunification services, and unmonitored visits. The juvenile court did not appoint counsel for mother. …

View Full Summary
Name: In re Isabella M.
Case #: B277142
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 03/13/2017

Where father did not seek to change his paternity status until just before permanent plan for 20-month-old minor, it was not in the minor's best interest to grant father's 388 petition and relitigate the dependency proceedings. The minor was removed due to mother's substance abuse issues. Appellant R.C. was named as the alleged father. He was incarcerated from the time of the minor's birth, when she was detained, until the minor was 20 months old. Although he received notice of the proceedings, he did not contact the Department or make an appearance until just before the 366.26…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Alayah J.
Case #: B275728
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/08/2017

Juvenile court erred when it conditioned mother's 388 hearing upon non-termination of parental rights, but the error was harmless. Prior to the 366.26 hearing, mother filed a section 388 petition requesting unmonitored visits and placement. The juvenile court granted her a hearing, to be held the same date as the section 366.26 hearing, but noted that the hearing would only be held if mother's parental rights were not terminated. The juvenile court terminated mother's parental rights and did not consider her section 388 petition. The appellate court found the juvenile court erred by conditioning the hearing…

View Full Summary
Name: B.B. v. Superior Court
Case #: D070894
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/09/2016

Following termination of guardianship, the court should have proceeded under section 388, but the error was harmless. In 2013, father's reunification services were terminated and the minor was appointed a legal guardian. In 2016, the Agency filed a new petition under section 300, seeking to terminate the guardianship and set a 366.26 hearing. Father sought writ review, contending that the Agency erred when it filed a new section 300 petition instead of a petition under section 388 to terminate the guardianship. Father contended the error was prejudicial because it denied him the opportunity to seek reunification…

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.L.
Case #: A145970
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/13/2016

Order denying Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing was affirmed where mother failed to make a prima facie showing that moving the minors from multiple placements to a single placement was in their best interests. Following termination of her parental rights, mother challenged the order denying her section 388 petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. In the section 388 petition, mother had asked the court to change the children's separate placements and place them all together with grandmother. The petition stated that grandmother had acquired a home that was large enough to house all three children.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Liam L.
Case #: D067729
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/30/2015

Father's failure to file a 388 petition requesting placement of the minors under section 361.2 was harmless, and the juvenile court properly found no evidence of detriment before placing the minors with him. The minors were placed with the previously noncustodial presumed father at the 12-month review hearing. Mother appealed the placement order, contending that the evidence did not support the court's finding that the minors' placement with father would not be detrimental under section 361.2, subdivision (a). The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. First, although father failed to file a 388 petition, which is required for…

View Full Summary
Name: In re F.A.
Case #: G051494
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/13/2015

The juvenile court did not err by granting second foster parents 388 petition even though minor was erroneously removed from first foster parents. When the minor was born exposed to methamphetamine, the court placed her with the S. foster parents, who hoped to adopt her. When the minor was seven weeks old, the Department erroneously removed her from the S's care and placed her with the M's, who also hoped to adopt her. When the Department discovered its mistake, it decided to re-place the minor with the S's. The M's filed a grievance, which resulted in the minor staying in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Priscilla D.
Case #: F069317
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/04/2015

Legal guardianship can be terminated upon motion of a parent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. The juvenile court ordered the three minors into a guardianship with relatives and terminated jurisdiction following a dependency proceeding. Two years later, mother filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to change its orders because she had been free of substance abuse, had a permanent and safe home for the minors, and had liberal visitation including weekends and school breaks. The minors also wanted to return to mother and be reunited as a family. Following a hearing on the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.S.
Case #: C075626
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/24/2014

The juvenile court abused its discretion by applying clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in order to modify prior order bypassing services. Following removal of the minors, the juvenile court bypassed services to the parents based on their prior resistance to drug treatment. The parents subsequently filed 388 petitions to modify the bypass order. The juvenile court denied the petitions, finding that the proper burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence that services were in the minors' best interest. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new hearing. In dependency cases, except as otherwise provided, the burden…

View Full Summary